Juan Lopez Stage 6 Thesis Outline Document

GATESHEAD TYNE BANK Masterplan Briefing Document

Juan Lopez & Olyvia Tam Material Change / 2021-2022 / Semester 1

FOREWORD Our project will aim to reconcile & resurface the two competing site identities of Industrial Heritage & The Arts through Waste Management. It will do so by working collaboratively to negotiate the various dualities through our approach and methodology towards masterplan design. The tension between the two identities is a result of the council’s continued (and failed) approach towards placemaking through location branding and rigid vision planning.

This will be explored, and situation tested, by the development of this Briefing Document & Zoned Masterplan with defined and speculative interventions.

CONTENTS

PAGE

PROLOGUE ARB GENERAL CRITERIA

6

CRITICAL INTRODUCTION: A Note on Dualities

8

SITE BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW: Gateshead Riverside Park

PART 3 / SPECULATIVE ELEMENTS

212

9.0 / Links in Gateshead Tyne Bank 9.1 / Interventions & Buildings 9.2 / Stakeholder Engagement Framework

214

10.0 / Wider Application of New Approach: National & International

222

12

EPILOGUE SUMMARY & REFLECTIVE CONCLUSIONS (Thesis Outline)

224

BIBLIOGRAPHY

234

APPENDICES

236

PART 1 / APPROACH & RATIONALE

44

1.0 / Critiquing Gateshead Council’s Existing Approach

46

2.0 / Proposed New Approach

54

3.0 / Architectural Theorem Underpinning New Approach 3.1 / Concept of Placemaking 3.2 / Architect as the Individual Genius 3.3 / Participatory Design

62

4.0 / Past Case-Studies

68

5.0 / Relating New Approach to An Educational Narrative

74

6.0 / Design Leads ‘Selective Collaboration’ Framework 6.1 / Overview 6.2 / Co-Critiquing Strategies & Methods 6.3 / Co-Critiquing Programme 6.4 / Stakeholder Feedback Opportunities

86

PART 2 / RESOLVED ELEMENTS

94

7.0 / Gateshead Tyne Bank Masterplan 7.1 / Concept Overview 7.2 / Masterplan Zoning Development 7.3 / Wider Context Analysis 7.4 / Developed Zoning 7.5 / Gateshead Tyne Bank Districts 7.6 / Identifying District Cores 7.7 / Masterplan Sphere of Influence 7.8 / Masterplan Precedents

96

8.0 / Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank 8.1 / District Cores Development & Analysis 8.2 / Sites of Activity Personal Comparisons 8.3 / Sites of Activity Strategy 8.3.1 / Developing a Design Brief 8.3.2 / Anchor & Link Site Declaration 8.4 / Transport Link (Operation Strategy & H. L. Design Intent)

126

Amended Piece New Piece

ARB GENERAL CRITERIA Example (applies for section): GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

Overview Each chapter within this document has been referenced the relevant ARB criteria along the base of the page. This has allowed us to gain an understanding of the knowledge and skills expected from the ARB allowed us to track which criteria we have met, and those which we need to focus upon next semester.

GC1 / Ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical requirements.

1. Prepare and present building design projects of diverse scale, complexity, and type in a variety of contexts, using a range of media, and in response to a brief; 2. Understand the constructional and structural systems, the environmental strategies and the regulatory requirements that apply to the design and construction of a comprehensive design project; 3. Develop a conceptual and critical approach to architectural design that integrates and satisfies the aesthetic aspects of a building and the technical requirements of its construction and the needs of the user.

GC2 / Adequate knowledge of the histories and theories of architecture and the

6

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

related arts, technologies and human sciences.

1. The cultural, social and intellectual histories, theories and technologies that influence the design of buildings; 2. The influence of history and theory on the spatial, social, and technological aspects of architecture; 3. The application of appropriate theoretical concepts to studio design projects, demonstrating a reflective and critical approach.

GC3 / Knowledge of the fine arts as an influence on the quality of architectural design.

1. How the theories, practices and technologies of the arts influence architectural design; 2. The creative application of the fine arts and their relevance and impact on architecture; 3. The creative application of such work to studio design projects, in terms of their conceptualisation and representation.

GC4 / Adequate knowledge of urban design, planning and the skills involved in the planning process.

1. Theories of urban design and the planning of communities;

2. The influence of the design and development of cities, past and present on the contemporary built environment; 3. Current planning policy and development control legislation, including social, environmental and economic aspects, and the relevance of these to design development.

constructional and material systems relevant to architectural design; 2. Strategies for building construction, and ability to integrate knowledge of structural principles and construction techniques; 3. The physical properties and characteristics of building materials, components and systems, and the environmental impact of specification choices.

GC5 / Understanding of the relationship between people and buildings, and between buildings and their environment, and the need to relate buildings and the spaces between them to human needs and scale.

1. The needs and aspirations of building users; 2. The impact of buildings on the environment, and the precepts of sustainable design; 3. The way in which buildings fit in to their local context.GC6 / Understanding of the profession of architecture and the role of the architect in society, in particular in preparing briefs that take account of social factors.

1. The nature of professionalism and the duties and responsibilities of architects to clients, building users, constructors, co-professionals and the wider society 2. The role of the architect within the design team and construction industry, recognising the importance of current methods and trends in the construction of the built environment; 3. The potential impact of building projects on existing and proposed communities.

GC9 / Adequate knowledge of physical problems and technologies and the function of buildings so as to provide them with internal conditions of comfort and protection against the climate.

1. Principles associated with designing optimum visual, thermal and acoustic environments; 2. Systems for environmental comfort realised within relevant precepts of sustainable design; 3. Strategies for building services, and ability to integrate these in a design project.

GC6 / Understanding of the profession of architecture and the role of the architect in society, in particular in preparing briefs that take account of social factors.

1. The nature of professionalism and the duties and responsibilities of architects to clients, building users, constructors, co-professionals and the wider society 2. The role of the architect within the design team and construction industry, recognising the importance of current methods and trends in the construction of the built environment; 3. The potential impact of building projects on existing and proposed communities.

GC7 / Understanding of the methods of investigation and preparation of the brief for a design project.

1. The need to critically review precedents relevant to the function, organisation and technological strategy of design proposals; 2. The need to appraise and prepare building briefs of diverse scales and types, to define client and user requirements and their appropriateness to site and context; 3. The contributions of architects and co-professionals to the formulation of the brief, and the methods of investigation used in its preparation.

GC8 / Understanding of the structural design, constructional and engineering problems associated with building design.

1. The investigation, critical appraisal and selection of alternative structural,

GC10 / The necessary design skills to meet building users’ requirements within the constraints imposed by cost factors and building regulations.

1. Critically examine the financial factors implied in varying building types, constructional systems, and specification choices, and the impact of these on architectural design; 2. Understand the cost control mechanisms which operate during the development of a project; 3. Prepare designs that will meet building users’ requirements and comply with UK legislation, appropriate performance standards and health and safety requirements.

GC11 / Adequate knowledge of the industries, organisations, regulations and procedures involved in translating design concepts into buildings and integrating plans into overall planning.

1. The fundamental legal, professional and statutory responsibilities of the architect, and the organisations, regulations and procedures involved in the negotiation and approval of architectural designs, including land law, development control, building regulations and health and safety legislation; 2. The professional inter-relationships of individuals and organisations involved in procuring and delivering architectural projects, and how these are defined through contractual and organisational structures; 3. The basic management theories and business principles related to running both an architect’s practice and architectural projects, recognising current and emerging trends in the construction industry.

ARB General Criteria

7

CRITICAL INTRODUCTION A Note on Dualities

Opposite // Twin Cities In spite of a head-start in terms of its development, Gateshead has always fallen behind Newcastle in so many regards - life expectancy, qualifications, wage.

GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

The various iterations of what is now Gateshead Riverside Park were born out of an eager desire to establish a distinctive identity for this part of the town. A historic part of Gateshead, it began as a prosperous commercial and residential district. Following a steep decline when the vibrant local industry left, it has since tried to reinvent itself in numerous manners; most prevailingly as an artistic node to Newcastle and Gateshead. The number of changes the park has undergone reveal a myriad of tensions embedded within each attempt to revive this site. One specific theme that appears to have a continuous presence throughout history is the idea of duality and the complexities that arise from navigating and mediating between them.

Dualities are present not only within the park itself but also on a wider context. Located on the opposing bank of the Tyne, Newcastle appears to consistently cast a shadow over Gateshead’s presence where the former has always been one step ahead in terms of its development. Gateshead Council has repeatedly attempted to place8

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

make by applying a new theme to the site as a means to create a location brand to express part of the perceived genius loci for the place. What was once a rich industrial site has become an urban park; which since then, has evolved into an ill-received arts-sculpture trail. The constant name changes of the park have uncovered the current endeavour to bring the theme of Industry back to the forefront, placing Industrial Heritage and The Arts at opposing ends - each competing to shape the site’s identity as the primary theme.

In response to this tension, this briefing document aims to devise a design approach that will negotiate between dualities. The result will manifest itself in a masterplan strategy that works to reconcile the two overarching site themes of Industrial Heritage and The Arts. This approach centres around collaboration and participatory design a critique on the traditional architect’s top-down attitude towards masterplanning. Thus, presenting an opportunity for a mode of working that involves two design leads; where one takes on a design

2000

1850

1700

NEWCASTLE

TYNE

GATESHEAD

2000

1950

1850

1700

bias towards Industry & its heritage, whilst the other towards The Arts. Ultimately, by working collaboratively it will provide a solution to the divide. This method of collaboration proved appropriate as even within the design leads there are inherent dualities and perceived differences. Naturally there will be conflicting opinions in terms of aesthetic intentions and architectural approach; but also intrinsically where we represent the (normative) reciprocal forms of gender, background and sexuality. The way we interpret the world and the site will undoubtedly be different, hence having two design voices that mediate the competing themes will ultimately seek for a resolution that is balanced and considerate.

In working towards devising a design process, the professional approach of participatory design has been studied to understand how it could be adapted to suit the educational nature of the yearlong project. Analysing where consultation would usually take place within the professional timeline has allowed us to consider when and how stakeholder engagement could still occur; albeit at a different level of intensity and in an inventive manner. This is particularly valuable with our limitations under the current pandemic, our role as students, and the short timeframe.

As a result, it can be argued that there is also an element of dichotomy in the approach that emerges when developing a briefing document and the resultant masterplan between professional practice and architectural education. As part of this document will elaborate, the briefing document and masterplan are often seen as two different entities developed at different stages. However, for the purposes of this project they have been developed concurrently and are seen as counterparts of each other. Part of our role as design-leads has been to analyse & comprehend the points of agreement and conflict that emerge from the professional approach, which we have adapted to ‘fit’ an educational narrative. The findings can then be taken forward to underpin and bolster real world scenarios and projects through the devised design process that has been detailed through this briefing 10

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

document and masterplan.

Duality (extending to elements of duplexity and dichotomy) is a concept heavily embedded in this project; whether it deals with the site themes & context; relating to the design leads; or even the studied professional approach and presented educational narrative.

This briefing document sets up the design process framework towards a speculative masterplan vision where tensions between Industrial Heritage and The Arts are negotiated. This will give rise to a unified and strong identity of place to secure its successful development and longevity. This allows us to question if the devised design approach could be applied to other locations on a national and international scale. More importantly, however, it reveals the merits of collaborative design and its real-world applications to further expand the conversation between professional practice and architecture education.

Critical Introduction: A Note on Dualities

11

SITE BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW Gateshead Riverside Park GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

1800s

1819

1200s

1340s

Cultural & Identity Development

1246

PIPEWELL

The area encompassed by Gateshead Riverside Park carries a rich and complex history. It has gone through various iterations in terms of its identity which has led it to have a tumultuous cultural development.

The timeline opposite details all of the key events that occurred within the accepted boundary of the park shown in RED; site identity and contextual events are shown in BEIGE; meanwhile, the line linking the various site events tracks the cultural development as being more or less positive is shown in BLUE. The Line of Cultural Development allowed us to analyse and define three distinct eras for the site relating to its culture & identity: embodied, applied and perceived.

The forthcoming pages will elaborate on each of these eras in relation to their history and mapping of key sites.

12

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

EMBODIE

RIVERSIDE SCULPTURE PARK

2010s

2020

2021

1970

1986

2000

1854

1980

1930s

2020s 1874

1850s

ED CULTURE & IDENTITY

2020s 2004

1839

1969

1995

GATESHEAD RIVERSIDE: PIPEWELLGATE

1990s

GATESHEAD RIVERSIDE PARK

1990

LGATE & RABBIT BANKS

APPLIED CULTURE & IDENTITY

PERCEIVED CULTURE & IDENTITY

Site Background & Overview: Gateshead Riverside Park

13

Opposite // Pipewellgate & Rabbit Banks Entrance to Pipewellgate, situated at the Gateshead end of the Swing Bridge (1844).

Embodied Culture & Identity

Before 1850 Pre-17th Century, the original settlement was still little more than a large village, noted for its ‘oak trees and windmills’. The first mention of a market was in 1246 and the first mines were mentioned to appear in the 1340’s which would later bring much work to the area.

The first formal mention of ‘Pipewellgate’ was around the 1600s. The Pipewellgate area of Gateshead ran west along the riverbank from the Swing Bridge to the Redheugh Bridge. ‘Rabbit Banks’ stems from the wildlife found there. There used to be a farm in the vicinity which was probably incorporated into the railway works.

Pipewellgate was originally a separate township. It was named after the ‘pipe well’ from which wooden pipes carried Gateshead’s water supply. The suffix ‘-gate’ is used in the sense of street or lane. The street was of medieval origin but was largely rebuilt in the 18th Century.

Pipewellgate ran parallel to the river and consisted of small factories, workshops and tenement houses. It was generally regarded as one 14

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

of the worst residential areas in Gateshead.

In 1819 the Gasworks were built and the site started to become an unpleasant place to live. By 1839 a railway station opened and by 1850 inspectors referred to the living conditions of Pipewellgate as a ‘vile place’.

Opposite // The Great Fire of Newcastle & Gateshead Portrayal of Newcastle & Gateshead during the fire; Newcastle is across the river, Gateshead in the foreground (1854).

Embodied Culture & Identity

Victorian Period By 1850 the whole area was converted into railway workshops and the riverside became increasingly overcrowded.

In 1854 a fire, emerging in a Gateshead factory close to the river.

This quickly got out of control and spread to an adjacent warehouse containing huge stores of salt, iron, lead, manganese, nitrate of soda, guano, arsenic, copperas, naptha, and brimstone. The whole building suddenly exploded. The flying debris caused a second huge fire to break out on the northern bank of the river, which ultimately destroyed many of the medieval buildings. Hundreds of people were made homeless by the event which was known for many years after as ‘The Great Fire of Newcastle and Gateshead’. The fire destroyed nearly all of the few historical buildings that existed but left Pipewellgate virtually unscathed.

However, in 1819 a gas works was established in Pipewellgate and from that time on, the area rapidly declined. In 1874 the pubs that 16

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

existed were: the ‘Blue Bell’, the ‘Brandling Junction’, the ‘Cross Keys’, the ‘Crown & Thistle’ and the ‘Fountain’ and by this time slum clearance was well underway.

Opposite Locations of Historic Industry Sites N

Embodied Culture & Identity

Mapping Industrial Heritage The area in and around the park has a rich and varied industrial heritage. However, with the landscaping of the Pipewellgate and Rabbit Banks in the late 1960s and early 1970s , it meant that this was all but lost.

Some of the sites of particular interest were: 1. Dunston Staiths (1893 - Present) 2. Redheugh Gas Works (1876 - 1978) 3. Tyne Bolt & Rivet Works (1890 - 1910) 4. Redheugh Brick Works (1890 - 1930) 5. Redheigh Iron & Steel Works (1890 - 1961) 6. Dunston Colliery (1893 - 1947) 7. Shipbreaking Yard (1910 - 1950) 8. Greensfield Locomotive Works (1854 - 1991) 9. Newcastle & Gateshead Water Works (1845 - 1947) 10. Pipewellgate Foundry (1838 - Unknown) 11. Artificial Stone Works (1890 - 1910) 18

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Grease Works (1890 - 1910) Pipewellgate Bottle Works (1890 - 1910) Colourworks (1890 - 1910) Redheugh Manure Works (1890 - 1950) Tyne Paper Mill (1890 - 1910) Redheugh Engine Works (1890 - 1910)

The following spread provides a closer view of the densely populated sector of Pipewellgate as well as photos and brief overview of the most important and active sites.

For an in-depth review of the sites please refer to ‘Appendix A’.

NEWCASTLE

E

N

R

VE

RI

TY

See Pg.21

8

9

GATESHEAD RIVERSIDE PARK

1

2 6

3 4

2 5

GATESHEAD

Opposite Close-Up of the Densely Populated Sector of Pipewellgate N

1 // Dunston Staiths Dunston Staiths was opened in 1893 by the North Eastern Railway Company for the purpose of loading North Durham coal onto ships.

At its peak in the 1920s there was 140,000 tons of coal passing through the staiths each week, the structure was reputedly the largest wooden structure in Europe, running 521 meters parallel to the Tyne.

Dunston Staiths were the last to close in 1980 along the Tyne after the decline in the coal industry. In 1990 the structure was restored and opened to the public as part of the Gateshead Garden Festival. In 2003 a section of the staiths was destroyed by fire and the structure was closed to the public. In 2005 Gateshead council began looking at options for the staiths restoration.

2// Redheugh Gas Works Gasworks in Gateshead date back to 1819 when there was a small works in Pipewellgate. Redheugh gasworks was a 25 acre site developed over a 23 year period. There was a set of 4 retort houses, 20

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

where the gas was stores, the structure of number 3 survives today.

The whole site was densely developed: a network of rail tracks, tanks, workshops, gas holders, chimneys and other installations filled the site between the Tanfield Branch railway and the River Tyne.

8 // Greensfield Locomotive Works In 1854 the North Eastern Railway opened the site for locomotive repair, the train shed from the previous station became the erecting shop and the station hotel became the offices. The site soon became the North Eastern Railway’s headquarters and main works employing over 3300 by 1909. By 1910 the site had became too small and production was moved to Darlington, however the site remained open to maintain overhaul engines until it finally closed in 1959. After this the site became Gateshead TMD, a railway traction maintenance depot, which closed in 1991. Most of the works was demolished in 2002 and the remaining buildings now form part of a residential development, Ochre Yards.

7 17

11 16

15

14

13

12

10 1

2

8 Site Background & Overview: Gateshead Riverside Park

21

Summary: Embodied Culture & Identity This era represents the time of the studied site prior to its development into a public green space. As a result, this can be interpreted as the embodied culture & identity due to its well documented and accepted history of events.

As the ‘Line of Cultural Development’ shows, although the area had a prosperous beginning; with the potential of becoming a key industrial force, ultimately, the type of industry that arrived severely impacted the quality of life.

Although the ‘Great fire of Newcastle & Gateshead’ did not directly damage Pipewellgate; many people lost their jobs as a lot of the nearby factories were destroyed - causing the area to be plunged into further decline. Furthermore, transport developments in the wider area caused ‘Pipewellgate & Rabbit Banks’ to be cut off, drawing people away in search of a better standard of living.

22

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

By the end of the war, it had left the once prosperous and bustling area, a desolate and all but forgotten slum.

PIPEWELLGATE & RABBIT BANKS

G 1876 // Swing Bridge Opened 1893 // Dunston Coal Staiths Opened 1906 // King Edward Bridge Opened 1928 // Tyne Bridge Opened

Railway stationed opened which better connected the area to the nearby growing Gateshead & Newcastle.

Much of the initial industry had left the area; with only a few pubs remaining slum clearance was underway.

1930s

The Great Fire of Newcastle & Gateshead left hundreds homeless and destroyed many medieval buildings.

Pipewellgate was left virtually untouched.

1874

Living conditions continued to deteriorate due to overcrowding leading inspectors to refer to Pipewellgate as ‘vile’.

1970

1969

1854

The Gasworks opened.

It continued to bring work to the area but had a negative impact on living conditions.

1850s

1340s

First recorded mention of a market in the area.

Mines began to appear in the area, bringing much work to the locals.

1839

1200s

1246

(more negative)

By this period, the area had become a thriving residential and market town.

1819

(more positive)

Line of Cultural Development

1800s

1950 // High Level Bridge Opened

Rabbit Ban landscape area was t public par

Following the slum clearances and the construction of the Tyne Bridge led to many people bypassing the area; resulting in further decline.

EMBODIED CULTURE & IDENTITY Site Background & Overview: Gateshead Riverside Park

23

Opposite // Gateshead Riverside Park Portrayal of Newcastle & Gateshead during the fire; Newcastle is across the river, Gateshead in the foreground (1854).

Applied Culture & Identity

20th Century & Post-War During the middle of the 19th Century people began to move out to more attractive areas. This outflow was compounded by the building of the ‘Tyne Bridge’ that encouraged traffic to by-pass the riverside, and the major slum clearances of the 1930s. Further developments in road, rail and tram all by-passed the riverside and steep Rabbit Banks resulting in further decline.

The banks were landscaped in 1969-70 to create the ‘Gateshead Riverside Park. By the 1980s, ‘Greenesfield Works’ continued to be used as a railway maintenance facility and some of the buildings were converted into residential apartments (part of Bellway’s Ochre Yards development) or offices of the UK Land development. Also between 1970 and 1980, the road network along Askew Road was upgraded but in doing so cut the connection between the town centre of Gateshead to the river.

By the turn of the millennium, the area now formed a sculpture trail 24

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

created as part of the 1990 ‘Gateshead Garden Festival’.

One of the last remnants of the industrial-era Pipewellgate, Brett Oils, closed in 2004 and the site was later flattened to make way for a planned stylish residential area.

Opposite Locations of Artworks N

Applied Culture & Identity

Mapping The Arts Over the course of 30 years, a total of 12 artworks have been commissioned and placed all over the Gateshead Riverside Park to create a sculpture trail, often referred to as Riverside Sculpture Park. The trail is home to pieces from some of the most renowned artists, as well as local sculptors. The trail is open year-round and has always been free entry as per the public art programme, ‘Art in the Environment’ which was initiated by Gateshead Council in 1986 to improve the urban realm.

The artworks, listed in chronologial order, are: 1. Rolling Moon // Colin Rose (1990) 2. Once Upon a Time // Richard Deacon (1990) 3. Cone // Andy Goldsworthy (1992) 4. Goats // Sally Matthews (1992) 5. Phoenix Cobbles // Maggie Howarth (1994) 6. Rise & Fall // Lulu Quinn (2007) 7. Thornbird Railings // Marcela Livingston (2007) 26

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

8. Nocturne // Nayan Kulkarni (2007) 9. Riverside Rivets // Andrew McKeown (2010) 10.Foliate Forms // Gilbert Ward (2010) 11. Rose Street Feature // Graeme Hooper (2010) 12. Entrance Feature // Keith Barrett (2010) The forthcoming spreads show photos of the artworks as well as key points detailing the inspiration behind it or how the sculpture relates to its context.

For an in-depth review of the artworks please refer to ‘Appendix A’.

NEWCASTLE

E

N

R VE

TY

1

6

RI

3

8

9

7

4

10 GATESHEAD

5 2 12

11

GATESHEAD RIVERSIDE PARK

28

1

Rolling Moon (1990) • Originally created for the Gateshead site at the 1988 Glasgow Garden Festival. In 1990, it was moved to the current site at the Riverside Sculpture Park, kickstarting the precedent of artworks being placed along the riverbanks to create a sculpture trail.

• The sculpture distils the idea of the moon’s dominant effect on the oceans’ tides and its influence on the whole of maritime history.

“...its majestic curve links it visually, though incidentally, to the structure of the Tyne Bridge...”

“...a callback to the ship building industry that was prevalent in Newcastle & Gateshead...”

2

Once Upon a Time (1990) • The sculpture was inspired by the architecture of the surrounding environment, making links with past industries along the Tyne.

• The nautical focus is a callback to the ship building industry that was prevalent in Newcastle & Gateshead.

• It is built onto the surviving abutment of the demolished Redheugh Bridge.

3

Cone (1992) • Built on an old foundry site, west of the High Level Bridge, Cone’s solid, four-metre-high structure is assembled from layers of steel plate.

• Despite industrial associations, the steel’s rawness retains qualities of the earth it came from, and the irregular structure evokes organic growth.

“...draws equally on the nature of steel and of a site, once industrial and inhabited, now grown over...

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

“...Gateshead has long been associated with goats...”

“...symbolising Gateshead’s regeneration after a period of industrial decline...”

Goats (1992) • In AD 653, during Roman times, records indicate that there may have been an emblem of a goat’s head on the side of a bridge.

• This would corroborate the Venerable Bede’s account of a monastery overlooking the bridge across the Tyne as being on a site in ‘Ad Caprae Caput’. Translated from Latin, this means ‘ Goat’s Head’.

4

Phoenix Cobbles (1994) • It follows the ancient art of ‘cocklakia’ (cobblestone mosaics) developed by the Romans.

• The flames could also be a reference to the infamous ‘Great Fire of Newcastle & Gateshead’ in 1854.

5

“... a reminder of the nearby industrial heritage and the explosion of new engineering...”

Rise & Fall (2007) • Rise and Fall is a landmark sculpture installed to mark the entrance to Gateshead’s riverside area on Pipewellgate.

• The artwork takes the form of a 6m high glass and stainless steel arch; echoing the arches of the High Level Bridge.

• It is designed to create a new focus, meeting point and dynamic viewing platform onto the Riverside.

6 Site Background & Overview: Gateshead Riverside Park

29

7

8

9 30

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Thornbird Railings (2007) • The Thornbird Railings consist of 25 panels featuring a repetitive pattern, representative of falling leaves or a winged bird.

• The artist carved each section, so it would change according to where the sun lies adding another dimension to the piece. The panels are made from malleable iron, providing the flexibility for the carved detail.

“...they mark a new path that has been built along the riverside to give a better view of the other artworks...”

Nocturne (2007) • Nocturne is a permanent light and colour installation built into the fabric of the QEII Metro Bridge between Newcastle and Gateshead.

• Visible from many places in and around the Tyne gorge, the work has two elements. By day the two-tone colour pattern on the 360m bridge changes its aspect according to the angle from which it is viewed and the time of day.

“...LED light units create a subtle pattern of colours which changes with the rise and fall of the river tide...”

Riverside Rivets (2010) • The shape draws inspiration from the rivets found on the many bridges that the sculptural trail passes under.

• Local children have made casts of their favourite objects which have then been encased within the sculptures.

• The names of the communities include: Bankies, Clasper, Dunston, Greenesfield, Rabbit Banks and Teams.

“...(they are) inscribed with the names of communities that are adjacent to the riverside...”

“...the stone is local to the area, while the sculpture is part of a series found in the city...”

Foliate Forms (1992) • The artwork is carved from Blaxter Stone which is quarried from a site in Northumberland.

• The sculpture stands over 3m high and can be viewed from within the park and the Centrelink bus.

“...the artworks help to announce the entrance to the park from the nearby residential area...”

Rose Street Feature (2010) • The artworks are sited at the Rose Street entrance and consist of an entrance, railings and seating made from mild steel.

• Inspiration has been taken from a sea theme.

“...the artworks are designed in response to the character of the environment in which they are set...”

Entrance Feature (2010) • The sculpture forms an archway at the Western entrance of the park.

• It is made of corten steel framed by a blue wave of powder coated steel.

• This is meant to represent the historic foundry and the river that runs along the site’s length respectively.

10

11

12 Site Background & Overview: Gateshead Riverside Park

31

Summary: Applied Culture & Identity By the late 1960s, Gateshead Council recognised that the area was in need of direct intervention. As a result, the slums were finally cleared; the banks landscaped and one of the artworks from the Gateshead site shown at the ‘Glasgow Garden Festival’ was transported to the new park. The area was to be initially known as ‘Gateshead Riverside Park’.

In the 1980s the council had chosen the site to be the epicentre of Art in the Environment’ programme where between 1990 and 2010 a series of site specific artworks would be commissioned to form part of a permanent sculpture trail along the park. From then on, the park was informally referred to as the ‘Riverside Sculpture Park’.

Due to all the ‘forced’ changes in such a short period of time, this era could be interpreted as the period of applied culture & identity where the site saw a massive improvement in terms of its cultural value as well as a reaffirmation of its identity amongst the locals.

32

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

RIVERSIDE SCULPTURE PARK GATESHEAD RIVERSIDE PARK

// Swing Bridge Opened

1981 // Queen Elizabeth Bridge Opened

1893 // Dunston Coal Staiths Opened

1983 // Redheugh Bridge Opened

1906 // King Edward Bridge Opened

2002 // BALTIC Opened

1988 // Glasgow Garden Festival

2004 // Sage Gateshead Ope

Gateshead Garden Festival Preparations

1928 // Tyne Bridge Opened

Artworks added to Riverside Sculpture Park

1950 // High Level Bridge Opened Gateshead Family Sculpture Day (Saltwell Park)

Following the slum clearances and the construction of the Tyne Bridge led to many people bypassing the area; resulting in further decline.

1986

Rabbit Banks were landscaped and the area was turned into a public park.

1980

1970

Park becomes part of the ‘National Cycle Network’ with Route 14 passing along the southern bank of the Tyne.

2004

1995

More public artworks are commissioned by Gateshead Council as part of ‘Art in the Environment’ programme and placed in the park to form a sculpture trail.

2000

The regeneration of the eastern edge of the south bank of the Tyne is complete; drawing footfall and activity away from Gateshead Riverside Sculpture Park.

2010s

1969

Gateshead Garden Festival, kickstarts a massive wave of regeneration in Gateshead and nearby areas. Raises cultural awareness and instils local pride & identity.

1990s

1990

Pipewell Stu

1930s

he initial ad left the h only a remaining ance was .

2001 // Millennium Bridge Opened

Public art programme, ‘Art in the Environment’ is initiated by Gateshead Council to improve the urban realm.

Road network along Askew Road finalised.

Improves transport links but it cuts area of from central Gateshead.

APPLIED CULTURE & IDENTITY

PERCEIVE Site Background & Overview: Gateshead Riverside Park

33

Opposite // A Family Day Out Photos from past events, showing people of all ages getting involved.

Perceived Culture & Identity

Gateshead Family Sculpture Day The event was held at Saltwell park for over 30 years, starting in 1985, during the last weekend of September. This means that it pre-dates the ‘Angel of the North’. With an average attendance of 1,000 people per year, it made it one of the most popular events in Gateshead. With a theme that changed every year; it was popular with people of all ages, making it a true family day out.

The day consisted of creative construction using just rough bits of timber and nails. There were working artists and sculptors to help and advice, allowing them to engage with the community. While the event was free, donations were welcomed and there was a small charge for equipment hire & some materials.

In 2019, the event was cut due to council budget cuts.

34

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Site Background & Overview: Gateshead Riverside Park

35

Opposite // An Artistic Wonderland Photos of past installations, showing the variety of scale and aesthetics.

Perceived Culture & Identity

Enchanted Parks Festival The event is held in December and is often regarded as the highlight of Gateshead’s Winter Festival. The event was first held in 2012 and took a break between 2019-2021 due to COVID-19. Also held in Saltwell Park, the festival transforms the park into a winter wonderland with a series of sculptures, installations, performances and interactive works. The illuminations cast a light on the grandeur of this Victorian country house and its expansive 55-acre garden.

Artists are invited from the North East and across the UK to create new large-scale pieces with playfulness at their heart; the artworks on display encourage you to let your imagination run wild.

The event is always tied together with a theme to harness the magic of the festive season.

Every year, people across the country come to experience the nighttime art trail every year.

36

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Site Background & Overview: Gateshead Riverside Park

37

Opposite Locations of Future Developments N

Perceived Culture & Identity

Mapping Future Planning Context In the forthcoming decade, there are several developments approved by the council that are set to transform Newcastle & Gateshead. With the site being located centrally amongst them, it’s vital to understand how its context will change so that any developments of the site can respond accordingly to situate the site in a advantageous position to safeguard its longevity. Moreover, it is also vital to asses the potential impact, positive or negative, these will have on Gateshead Riverside Park.

The artworks, listed in chronological order, are: 1. Pipewell Quay (2019 - 2022) 2. Brett Wharf (2020 - TBC) 3. Quayside West (2021 - 2031) 4. Cale Cross House (2021 - TBC) 5. Gateshead Quays (2021 - 2024) 6. Askew Road (TBC) 7. Askew Road West - Feasibility Study (N/A) 38

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

The forthcoming spreads show visuals of the developments as well as background information on them as well as the potential impact it might have to the site.

For an in-depth review of the developments please refer to ‘Appendix A’.

4

NEWCASTLE

E

N

R

VE

RI

TY

2

5

1

6

3

GATESHEAD

7 GATESHEAD RIVERSIDE PARK

1

Pipewell Quay (2019 - 2022) • Design // Ryder Architecture • Budget // Undisclosed • Use // Office Space • Client - Occupant // Aspire Technology Solutions • Scale // 2,800m2

Brett Wharf (2020 - TBC) • Design // FaulknerBrowns Architects • Budget // £41m • Use // Residential with Retail at Ground Floor • Client - Occupant // Young Professionals & Families • Scale // 5-10 storeys, 269 apartments.

2

Positive

Situated nearby the eastern entrance, it will draw activity and focus back into the western Gateshead river front, bringing increased visibility of the park within the local community.

This could have the knock on effect of more growing companies relocating to the area and becoming a new tech hub for the city, bringing more interest and investment into the local area to regenerate the park.

More Positive

The scheme would most likely help to improve public opinion of the local area as people will begin to associate it with a more successful, affluent and vibrant crowd given that the occupants will most likely be young professionals. This could have a knock on effect of bringing a resurgence of the park as the residents will begin to take ownership and pride in it due to its immediate proximity.

More Positive

Quayside West (2021 - 2031) • Design // FaulknerBrowns Architects • Budget // Undisclosed • Use // Mixed-Use with Residential Focus • Client - Occupant // Various • Scale // TBC

3 40

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

The vibrant mix-use scheme, attracting people of all ages, could potentially encourage people to explore the views they see, the park in particular, more closely. The Calders’ Site has been abandoned for two decades and re-introducing activity in the area could bring greater attention and awareness of the park which would result in stronger connections to the existing and new developments, to realise the potential of the park.

Neutral

Being one of the taller buildings along the north bank of the river, views to Cale Cross House are visible from our site. Its height also helps to act as a landmark, marking the entrance to Newcastle to those travelling from Gateshead. The redevelopment does not much of a direct link connecting it to our site, nor does it have much of an impact on its surrounding buildings/environment.

Cale Cross House (2021 - TBC) • Design // Beech Design & Build • Budget // £18m • Use // Residential • Client - Occupant // Professionals • Scale // 18 storeys, 250 studio apartments

4

More Negative

The scheme would likely be the final stage in the development of The Sage & Baltic Quarter which would only further draw footfall and attention away from the western riverside, leading to further public disinterest and further decline of the area. The development includes new seating areas and integrated public art.

These are all elements that the studied site either possesses or could benefit from; yet no effort has been made to link the two together to extend the sculpture trail or improve the existing offer.

Gateshead Quays (2021 - 2024) • Design // HOK & AHR Architects • Budget // £260m • Use // Mixed-Use with Entertainment Focus • Client - Occupant // Various • Scale // 54,500m2

5

Positive & Negative

The mixed offer will bring more activity to the immediate vicinity of the park while the prominent student occupation might cause more people to become aware of the park as they travel into and out of the city or in search for open space. However, the transient nature of the very occupants probably means that they won’t feel much ownership over the upkeep of the studied site. Furthermore, as the visuals suggest, there is plans for open roof terraces which might deter most from venturing and exploring other parks.

Askew Road (TBC) • Design // Kieth Davidson Partnership • Budget // Undisclosed • Use // Mixed-Use with Student Housing Focus • Client - Occupant // Various • Scale // 26 storeys (max)

6 Site Background & Overview: Gateshead Riverside Park

41

Summary: Perceived Culture & Identity At the turn of the millennium, a result of the long-standing benefits of the Gateshead Garden Festival, the ‘Millennium Bridge’, ‘BALTIC’ and ‘Sage Gateshead’ were completed. While these provided an overall improvement to the culture and identity of Gateshead, it drew activity and focus away from the studied site.

This is best highlighted by the fact that two long-running events relating to the arts & culture have consistently been held at nearby parks and have completely shunned the Riverside Sculpture Park. As a result, the area is yet again experiencing a decline as most of the locals are very rejective of it and often avoid walking past or simply feel that it no longer lives up to its name. The council have recognised this and have changed how the site is referred to for the 3rd time in 50 years.

By reverting back to its original name of ‘Pipewellgate’, it suggests that the area is in a transitional period, evolving to celebrate its rich industrial history.

42

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

In spite of initial success, the perceived culture & identity can be interpreted as undefined, mistaken and/or lost.

RIVERSIDE SCULPTURE PARK GATESHEAD RIVERSIDE: PIPEWELLGATE Opened

2001 // Millennium Bridge Opened

e Opened

2002 // BALTIC Opened

1988 // Glasgow Garden Festival

Pipewell Quay (2019 - 2022) Brett Wharf (2020 - TBC) Gateshead Quays (2021 - 2024)

2004 // Sage Gateshead Opened

Gateshead Garden Festival Preparations

Artworks added to Riverside Sculpture Park

Enchanted Parks Festival

Gateshead Family Sculpture Day (Saltwell Park)

ED CULTURE & IDENTITY

2000

The regeneration of the eastern edge of the south bank of the Tyne is complete; drawing footfall and activity away from Gateshead Riverside Sculpture Park.

2020s

2010s

2004

Park becomes part of the ‘National Cycle Network’ with Route 14 passing along the southern bank of the Tyne.

Public events focusing on the arts & sculpture take place away from the park; signalling its decline yet again.

2020

2021

art amme, ‘Art in vironment’ is d by Gateshead l to improve the realm.

More public artworks are commissioned by Gateshead Council as part of ‘Art in the Environment’ programme and placed in the park to form a sculpture trail.

1995

Gateshead Garden Festival, kickstarts a massive wave of regeneration in Gateshead and nearby areas. Raises cultural awareness and instils local pride & identity.

1990s

1990

Pipewell Studios (2019-2022)

Locals know little or nothing about the sculptures or history. The area is described as being ‘forgotten’ and used for undesirable or illicit activities (fly tipping & drugs).

Proposed developments nearby could either benefit or detriment the proposed studio site.

2020s

PERCEIVED CULTURE & IDENTITY Site Background & Overview: Gateshead Riverside Park

43

PART ONE (1)

GATESHEAD TYNE BANK

Approach & Rationale

1.0 / Critiquing Gateshead Council’s Existing Approach 2.0 / Proposed New Approach 3.0 / Architectural Theorem Underpinning New Approach 4.0 / Past Case-Studies 5.0 / Relating New Approach to An Educational Narrative 6.0 / Design Leads ‘Selective Collaboration’ Framework

1.0

Critiquing Gateshead Council’s Existing Approach GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

What Do The Locals Think?

Our first objective was to gain a better understanding as to why the site was experiencing another decline in terms of its cultural development, as stated in the previous section. We developed a questionnaire that was designed to obtain an in-depth and first-hand experience of the park from locals.

Shown opposite are some of the highlights as well as some key background to the surveyed people. The information demonstrates that irrespective of age and background, there is is a general confusion and lack of awareness surrounding the park and the sculpture trail it has.

46

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Opposite // Local’s Testimonials For a full transcript, please refer to ‘Appendix A’.

“It would feel more like a park if there were more benches for people to sit on.

Also, more signs informing people about the area and the sculptures.”

“...at night time it can be known to have a lot of young adolescents who will use the area to drink and take illegal substances under the Redheugh Bridge.”

“I do not know a lot about this area but would like to visit more in the future. It’s a shame there’s little there to make it more of an occasion...”

“I do not know a lot about this area but would like to visit more in the future. It’s a shame there’s little there to make it more of an occasion...”

NAME // Lucy AGE // 25 OCCUPATION // Mental Health Social Worker TIME LIVING IN AREA // 3 years

NAME // Matt AGE // 25 OCCUPATION // Flight Crew TIME LIVING IN AREA // Local

NAME // Carolyn AGE // 58 OCCUPATION // HTLE TIME LIVING IN AREA // Local

NAME // Darren AGE // 43 OCCUPATION // Photographer TIME LIVING IN AREA // Local

Opposite // Artwork Analytics Qualitative findings of the sculpture trail at Gateshead Riverside Park.

Why Do They Feel This Way?

48

By viewing and analysing the artworks as a whole, we were able to begin to understand why the locals feel so apathetic and rejective towards the current iteration of the site. The findings of the three categories (illustrated opposite) are elaborated below.

Artwork Themes Some of the artworks fit into one or more category, as a result the results are cumulative. Below is a breakdown of which sculptures comprise the categories.

Artwork & Artist Representation There is a negative disproportionate skew in terms of representation from a gender and artist locality; 66% of all artworks have been from male artists and 66% of all artworks are from artists who are not local to the area.

HISTORY: Once upon a Time, Goats, Phoenix, Rise & Fall.

INDUSTRY: Once upon a Time, Cone, Rise & Fall.

COMMUNITY: Phoenix, Rise & Fall, Riverside Rivets, Rose St. Feature, Entrance Feature.

N/A: Rolling Moon, Thornbird Railings, Nocturne, Foliate Forms.

The fact that this is a park which formed part of a council programme to incorporate site specific public art which fostered a sense of identity and pride (incorporating local history and culture); yet the majority of pieces are from people unfamiliar to the area, could go a way in explaining the decline in popularity and cultural development in recent years.

Artwork Site Specificity However, one way this aspect of the site could be improved by, is to provide better explanations to the artwork backgrounds and guidance to locate the various pieces. Most of the information compiled in the previous pages was obtained through online research from a variety of sources and not available on-site.

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

ARTWORK & ARTIST REPRESENTATION YEARS ADDED, GENDER SPLIT, ARTIST LOCALITY

ARTWORK THEMES

HISTORY (H), INDUSTRY (I), COMMUNITY (C), N/A

ARTWORK SITE SPECIFICITY

SITE SPECIFIC, RESPONDING TO OTHERS, N/A

5

10

4

4

8

3

6

2

4

1

2

Local Artist

5

3

1990

1992

Visiting Artist

Male

1

Female

2

1994

2007

2010

It could be suggested that the locals are more apathetic towards the sculptures due to an inability to identify with its creators and as a result do not feel a sense of unity or ownership with the sculptures or park.

H

I

C

N/A

What becomes evident is the prevalence of the number of sculptures which don’t have a clear theme. This could be seen as a contributing factor to the poor identity of the site as a significant proportion of artworks lack focus and create a sense of disparity.

Site

Others

N/A

This is perhaps the only area in which the park has been successful in. Of the 12 pieces, 66% either respond directly to site, cultural & historical context or to other existing pieces.

PART 1 // 1.0 Critiquing Gateshead Council’s Existing Approach

49

Opposite // Trend Identification For an in-depth review of the trends please refer to ‘Appendix A’.

What Does All Of This Reveal?

Trend 1 // The Mismanaged Development of the Park The addition of artworks in the studied site moved in a generally western direction. Starting from the historic entrance of Pipewellgate by the Swing Bridge towards what used to be the Rabbit Banks by the Teams Valley & Dunston Staiths.

Trend 2 // The Incongruous and Fickle Identity of the Park There is a trend for the park to be constantly changing its name. In the 2020s it changed from ‘Riverside Sculpture Park’ to ‘Gateshead Riverside: Pipewellgate’; in spite of its official name being ‘Gateshead Riverside Park’ as the entrance sculpture suggests.

This is surprising as the only piece that bears the park’s name is the one that is located furthest west and was the last to be added. This makes the only ‘designated’ entrance and confirmation of the site’s name feel like a tacked-on gesture, apologetic of its situation.

The new name given by the council suggests a redirected focus towards its industrial past. But looking at the most prevailing artwork theme, it would suggest a community focus. As the testimonials indicate; the local community don’t know or don’t think highly of the site. It suggests a community focused brand would not be adequate.

This illustrates the mismanagement of the park in terms of how the development and placing of the artworks have been a major contributing factor to its relative failure as a desirable destination.

50

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

The trend illustrates the importance of name and location branding on a place’s success. The park is in a transitional period of identity and focus. It is in dire need to ascertain its credibility by establishing a viable and appropriate place branding.

TREND 1

The addition of artworks in the studied site moved in a generally western direction.

ANALYSIS

INTERPRETATION

The only piece that bears the park’s name is most recent one located furthest west.

The only ‘designated’ entrance bearing the site’s name feels like a tacked on gesture.

REVELATION 1 The development and placing of the artworks have been a major contributing factor to its relative failure as a desriable destination.

“Riverside Sculpture Park has failed as a destination due to its mismanaged development...”

TREND 2 The park is constantly changing its name. It recently changed from ‘Riverside Sculpture Park’ to ‘Gateshead Riverside: Pipewellgate’.

EFFECT

ANALYSIS

INTERPRETATION

It is indistinguishable and inconsistent in terms of its identity.

New name given by the council is incoherent with most prevaling artwork theme.

The local community don’t know or don’t think highly of the site.

REVELATION 2

The park is in a transitional period of identity and focus. It is in dire need to assertain its credibility.

“...you give the right NAME to build the right PLACE...”

PART 1 // 1.0 Critiquing Gateshead Council’s Existing Approach

51

Opposite // Vicious Cycle Continued placemaking attempts have hidden the complexity of the site, obscuring its true identities. This is clearly unsustainable as the council is reverting back to previous forgotten attempts zoning will help to break this vicious cycle.

Placemaking Leading to Placebreaking While we recognise the council’s commendable efforts it has had regarding the site shown by the various attempts to placemake the site over a significant period of time; the act of placemaking is ultimately a double edged sword.

If many attempted place-branding attempts are not appropriated by the local community (and therefore accepted by the site) the efforts of placemaking can lead to placebreaking. This is what has happened at Gateshead Riverside Park. The continued placemaking attempts led to place-breaking, resulting in the psychological and physical waste present on site. Their manifestations have been developed in the next section of the document.

While the council’s intentions have been well placed, perhaps it is their approach behind how it aims to placemake the site that has been misguided.

52

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

?

VICIOUS CYCLE

PART 1 // 1.0 Critiquing Gateshead Council’s Existing Approach

53

2.0 Proposed New Approach GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

Driver (Why?) To critique the council’s top-down approach of placemaking through location branding towards the development of the site; as this has created significant amounts of psychological and physical waste.

The psychological waste has manifested itself in the forms of the memories and efforts associated with past location branding efforts for the site. Meanwhile, the physical waste can be interpreted as the ‘lost sculptures’ of the under-appreciated sculpture trail and the extensive fly tipping from the locals who deem the site as a worthy dumping ground for their own personal waste.

This is why we must now develop and propose a new approach through a Zoning approach that will work to resurface and strengthen the genius loci of the site as all its embodied historic intricacies are allowed to be expressed harmoniously.

54

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Opposite // Zoning The new approach embraces all the layers of previous placemaking attempts while simultaneously expressing the ingrained complexity of the site through a Zoning approach.

ZONING

VICIOUS CYCLE

PART 1 // 2.0 Proposed New Approach

55

Opposite // Mutually Exclusive At no point in time have Industry and The Arts been able to coexist on the site; the constant name changing of the site seems to suggest only one or the other can be present at any given period.

Thesis (What?)

To provide Gateshead Council with a new design approach towards the future evolution of the site. This approach will aim to guide the development of a new masterplanning approach that works to reconcile the two overarching identities of Industry and The Arts embodied by the site; whose continued placemaking attempts only worked to oppose these two themes. This ultimately resulted in ‘placebreaking’ the site.

56

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

RIVERSIDE SCULPTURE PARK PIPEWELLGATE & RABBIT BANKS

GATESHEAD RIVERSIDE PARK

GATESHEAD RIVERSIDE: PIPEWELLGATE

2020s

1200s

1969

2000

2020

2020s

EMBODIED CULTURE & IDENTITY

Industrial Identity

APPLIED CULTURE & IDENTITY

Waste Identity

PERCEIVED CULTURE & IDENTITY

Artistic Identity

PART 1 // 2.0 Proposed New Approach

57

Opposite // Selective Collaboration Between Industry Heritage & The Arts to manage and mitigate the impact of all waste (psychological & physical) on site. This will lead to the reconciliation of both.

Manifesto (How?) We aim to reconcile the tension of Industry and The Arts, through their common theme of waste management. Waste is a by-product of both processes as well as the relics of past placemaking efforts that manifest itself in psychological waste (discarded / forgotten identities) and physical waste (fly-tipping).

58

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

From the site research these three key themes / identities emerged which led to the development of the thesis.

INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

THE ARTS

SELECTIVE COLLABORATION

PART 1 // 2.0 Proposed New Approach

59

Opposite // Masterplan Development Timeline Shown opposite is how we envision that a better approach to the development of the site that takes into consideration the two overarching themes found on site. The process will ultimately result in the realisation of a masterplan.

stakeholders co masterplan de respond

‘MASTERPLAN DEVELOPMENT’

Proposed Approach While a lot of elements included in this process already happen in common practice, such as stakeholder engagement, phasing and mixed-use sites, our method combines all of these into one holistic approach, while proposing new aspects.

The new aspects a centred around incorporating a speculative nature of the masterplan - i.e. not presenting a finite vision when realising the masterplan. This has been achieved by introducing sites which act as ‘Anchors’ (our proposed defined elements) and ‘Links’ (speculative elements in response to the ‘Anchors’). These will be elaborated upon later in the document.

Furthermore, our proposed approach places emphasis on a collaborative dialogue between the design leads enacting the masterplan. This translates into defined points of collaboration and co-critique between design leads.

60

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

One Design Voice JL + OT design leads collaborate, each with a theme-bias

PHASE 1

omment at tail-end of esign & design leads d to feedback

stakeholders comment on anchor development proposals & design leads respond to feedback

‘ANCHOR SITE DEVELOPMENT’

‘ANCHOR SITE REFINEMENT’

Two Design Voices

stakeholders engage fully to develop link sites from the formalised anchor site proposals

‘LINK SITE DEVELOPMENT’

Multiple Design Voices

JL

= More complexity = More unique place

OT specific collaborative review points between design leads

PHASE 2

= Stronger Genius Loci

PHASE 3

PART 1 // 2.0 Proposed New Approach

61

3.0

Architectural Theorem Underpinning New Approach GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

3.1 // Concept of Placemaking Placemaking in architecture is commonly met with praise, seen as a conscious effort to create individualities. However, architectural critic James S. Russel noted that placemaking has become a superficial practice with an idealistic attitude. He claims that placemaking efforts have been reduced to ‘cookie-cutter’ blanket statements that only seem to ‘tidy’ or ‘sanitize’ a place.

We found that this perspective reflected the council’s strategies applied onto the site. The issue we identified, however, is not necessarily to do with placemaking as a practice, but the methods in which one attempts to place-make. Thus, it is the council’s persistent location branding that is controversial. As discussed earlier, each ‘brand’ only acts as a layer that hides all of the site’s complexity, an accumulation of history and culture over the years.

In response to this, we have devised the method of zoning as the appropriate placemaking tactic for the site. Through zoning, all of the 62

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

complexities can be revealed by harmoniously merging conflicting themes. The tensions between them is the root of individuality, the site specific conditions that are present nowhere else. By doing so, it allows the various site themes to coexist, allowing the interactions between them to form the genius loci of the site.

Placemaking itself is not a problematic practice. The real concern pertains to the methods used to achieve it. It is imperative to analyze the site and construct a framework, the origins of which is derived from site specific issues. By doing so, it reduces the risk and possibility of falling into the trap of creating a generic strategy that bears no real relation to the site.

VIEWS OF JAMES S. RUSSELL (Architectural Critic)

OUR INTERPRETATION OF PLACEMAKING APPROACHES (Applied to site)

PART 1 // 3.0 Architectural Theorem Underpinning New Approach

63

3.2 // Architect as the Individual Genius The architect as the individual genius has always been a problematic archetype for the profession. Too often than not, we are encouraged in architecture school to develop pioneering and eccentric ideas that would set us apart from our peers, that would lead the next revolution in architectural history. This phenomenon has manifested in endless waves of ‘starchitects’, inherently creating a profession that perpetuates an air of elitism. This culture of exclusivity leads to visionary concepts that only ever seems to appease the architect’s taste for the unorthodox and the novel, catering to the architect’s ego and sense of control over the built environment. OMA partner, Reinier de Graaf, voices a similar perspective and questions, ‘why do we contemporary architects wallow so much in the conviction that we have grand visions to offer? Where does it come from, this “God complex”, this desire to view ourselves as authority, essentially on everything?’

De Graaf suggests that this phenomenon serves as a ‘convenient with 64

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

decoy that allows us to shed any notion of collective responsibility’, almost a safety blanket that allows us to hide behind our design expertise as justification enough to impose our world view onto the built environment. Jeremy Till resonates with this, as he notes that there a common perception that the inclusion of end users within the design process would ‘encroach upon the comfort zone of architects’, situated within Vitruvius’ principles on durability, utility, and beauty (Hofmann, 2014). By introducing wider stakeholder participation, it is seen as a disruption or dilution towards the purist architectural idea.

Although Gateshead Council’s approach does not centre around the architect’s ego as such, the repeated site branding perpetuates a similar top-down approach to design. The multiple efforts to revive the site has not taken the users’ interests or needs into consideration, revealed by the lack of public engagement with the park. Despite the council’s good intentions, the imposing of site identities ultimately

Opposite // Architect as the Individual Genius Olyvia Tam & Juan Lopez

coincides with the council’s objective of needing to place-make rapidly, inevitably leading to the haphazard results. To resolve this, designers should strive to invent solutions that would reflect needs of the users, as opposed to the needs of themselves (Sanoff, 2000), allowing individual egos and objectives to take a back-seat and listen to the interests of others.

3.3 // Participatory Design Another concept informing our thesis is participatory design and the various methods for stakeholder engagement. It mainly focuses on communicating with end users throughout the design process, allowing their experiences to determine the best design strategy.

We found that this concept of participation particularly relevant to the site as its weak identity also stems from a lack of ownership and engagement from local residential communities. This neglect can be exhibited through the physical manifestations of waste on the site, often due to the endless fly-tipping. The park being a site for rubbish dump only intensifies the need for engagement. By doing so, it may motivate local communities to appreciate, conserve, and protect the park’s natural environment, ultimately adopting a sense of pride and autonomy towards their park.

66

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

PART 1 // 3.0 Architectural Theorem Underpinning New Approach

67

4.0 Past Case Studies GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

Ash Sakula Architects // Carnival Arts Center

Professional Precedent The spatial arrangement of the Carnival Arts Centre was derived from engaging the carnival arts community in Luton. As Luton has had a long history of carnival tradition, this building aims to reflect that.

Ash Sakula architects approached its design by first understanding the various process involved in costume making and carnival performances. ‘Day in the life’ posters were created to help other stakeholders to understand the different types of activities that would occur in the building, placing the needs of the end users at the heart of the design. The form of the Centre accommodates the carnival route, framing the building as the central hub of carnival arts. The main spaces were also designed with the flexibility of different uses that would follow the life cycle of carnival costumes - from its construction, to the ‘behind the scenes’ preparation for a carnival performance, to being exhibited to the public - being a project rooted completely in the daily routine of carnival artists.

68

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

PROCE COSTUME

ESS OF MAKING

Pattern of white brick facade inspired by the acoustic waves of samba rhythms.

Flexible main space to allow for a range of activities - costume making, performances, ‘behind the scenes’ processes.

Central courtyard doubles as a carnival route - allowing osmosis between performing and costume making.

BUILT FORM

PART 1 // 4.0 Past Case Studies

69

Sheffield City Council DWELL : Designing for Later Life

for

Wellbeing

in

Environments

Design Research Project Precedent The research project aims on developing age-friendly designs through engaging with the local aging community. The devised project framework and co-design methods have been applied to various stakeholder workshops. These informed the designing of residential schemes and speculative building codes, aimed to raise awareness for the need of aging design and how it could be integrated with the existing building regulations. Six residential typologies have also been devised, which can be taken and applied elsewhere, focusing on creating a new approach towards age-friendly housing. This is a fitting precedent as it has a similar dual focus on process and outputs, as well as the designs’ speculative nature that prevents imposition of traditional design strategies. It is worth noting that the high profile nature of the project and council support has enabled large-scale consultations and engagement activities, perhaps not the most applicable to our academic year-long project.

70

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Arts and Humanities Research Council

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Economic and Social Research Council

PROCESS

Project framework

Co-design methods

Stakeholder workshops

University of Sheffield

+

SCHEMES

Residential projects

Specifications & building codes to be used in the future

PART 1 // 4.0 Past Case Studies

71

VIRTUAL METHODS

Serie Postc

Global Studio // Vancouver Central Waterfront

Educational Precedent The main takeaway from this precedent is the various activities used as a means of consultation. Despite the large involvement of 90 students, teachers, and professionals, the educational focus of the project aligns closer to the nature of our project. The most helpful aspect is the difference in scale in which these interventions took place. Under the current pandemic circumstances, the scope for face-to-face activities is limited, hence their interactive website and postcard series is particularly useful. Local communities were able to virtually create or sketch out their ‘ideal’ waterfront, being a creative and engaging way of expressing opinions and views. This provides inspiration to the innovative or unorthodox ways in which we can conduct consultation to gain a sense of how the locals feel towards the site.

72

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

CONSULTATION METHODS

FACE-TO-FACE METHODS

Flas Present

es of cards

sh tation

Interactive Website

‘Build Your Own Waterfront’

‘Draw Your Own Waterfront’

Community Event

Fake Development Application (DA) notice used to engage those walking by

PART 1 // 4.0 Past Case Studies

73

5.0

Relating New Approach to An Educational Narrative GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

Year Overview Following conversations with our tutors during initial stages of the project; it was suggested that we had reached a cross-roads. On one hand, the project could have developed focusing intensely on designing a process; while on the other, it could have been driven by producing a resolved built scheme.

While this was a valuable observation, we felt that there was merit in trying to push both process and product. Relating this idea back to the site, it is the council’s approach to ‘the process’ (placemaking through location branding) that resulted in an ill-executed ‘product’ (the failing sculptural trail).

For our year overview, both process and product would have an equal importance and weighting in terms of our investment in their development.

This is what ultimately began our interest in the parallelism between 74

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

an educational narrative (process focus) and professional practice (product focus).

Developed in conversation with each other.

A document with a set of opportunities, not proposals.

A new approach to masterplanning that actively engages with local communities during its developmental stages and relies on their input through its enactment.

BRIEFING DOCUMENT

MASTERPLAN

PROCESS FOCUS (50%)

PRODUCT FOCUS (50%)

Value of Devising a Process (Documented)

Architectural Design Output (Scenario Tested)

“The process is just as important as the output.”

It’s how the method / approach helps you design better design proposals.

A group of configurable / multiple solutions that are not presented as finite. With a set of designed proposals / elements that unlock the opportunities of the configurable options.

PART 1 // 5.0 Relating New Approach to An Educational Narrative

75

Project Framework As we had settled on developing both a process and product, we rapidly became aware of the project’s scale to realise within a year.

While projects akin to this one (UN Global Studio) have been seen to completion, that was led by a cohort of students, teachers and practitioners. In contrast, Gateshead Tyne Bank is being mainly developed by two design-leads.

We began investigating how we could adapt it to fit a traditional academic project. What became evident as the best way forward was to use a professional approach (see Pg.60) to underpin and inform the adapted process for an educational narrative. This would enable both the process and product to be delivered at a coherent and comparable level of resolve to one another.

76

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

THESIS Our project will aim to reconcile & resurface the two competing site identities of Industrial Heritage & The Arts. It will do so by working collaboratively to negotiate the various dualities through our approach and methodology towards masterplan design. This will be explored, and situation tested, by the development of this Briefing Document & Zoned Masterplan.

EDUCATIONAL NARRATIVE Designing in Collaboration with a fellow design-lead counterpart which adopts a new method of ‘zoning’ rather than ‘vision-placemaking’.

What the project focuses on:

(process timeline adapted to fit year-long education project)

PROFESSIONAL APPROACH Developing a masterplan which encourages participatory design from stakeholders.

Underpinned by a desire to design a ‘real’ process that applies its findings onto a live-site.

PART 1 // 5.0 Relating New Approach to An Educational Narrative

77

Opposite // Process Flows & Outputs Direct Link Indirect Link

Comparing Process Flows While developing the masterplan process, it became clear that there were two process flows that could be developed depending on where the emphasis was placed. The first being a Professional Approach where stakeholder engagement has a more direct and profound impact on the designs. The second being an Educational Narrative that leans into how we (the design-leads) interact and learn from each other; while still leaving space for stakeholder engagement where possible.

Referencing back to the presented architectural theorem (See 3.0), the emphasis on collaborative strategies combats the ‘Architect as the Individual Genius’ archetype.

While both process flows are worthwhile exploring, for the purposes of a year-long project (elaborated upon in this section), we have decided to place emphasis on following the process flow of an Educational Narrative.

78

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

In the Educational Narrative, the Briefing Document & Masterplan are now counterparts, not separate elements created in different stages.

Briefing Document details: • HOW we have collaborated; • WHY we have collaborated; • WHERE we have collaborated; • WHAT we have learned & adapted on our designs as a result of our collaboration.

The masterplan is therefore the realisation & physical manifestation of the process detailed by the Briefing Document.

Our aim is to draw parallels between the reality of the scenario (Professional Approach) & the benefits accredited to us as students by adopting this mode of working (Educational Narrative).

PROFESSIONAL APPROACH Stakeholders

Council Outsources Design Leads to Enact BF

Specialists & Analysts

Gateshead Council

Gateshead Council

BRIEFING DOCUMENT

MASTERPLAN

EDUCATIONAL NARRATIVE Stakeholders

Awareness of Studio Projects

Possibility for Design Leads to Comment on Revised Masterplan

Gateshead Council

Design Leads Take Innitiative to Create B.F. & Masterplan Following Conversations with Council

Gateshead Council

JL

OT

OT

JL

Stakeholder Engagement & Consultation

BRIEFING DOCUMENT

MASTERPLAN

Gateshead Council

REVISED MASTERPLAN

PART 1 // 5.0 Relating New Approach to An Educational Narrative

79

stakeholders co masterplan de respond

Gateshead Tyne Bank (as a realisation project)

Professional Timeline: Proposed In a real-world scenario, we envision that the council would have consulted with specialists & analysts to develop the Briefing Document.

This would act as a ‘manual’ or ‘step-by-step guide’ on how to better develop & manage the wider site.

‘MASTERPLAN DEVELOPMENT’

One Design Voice JL + OT design leads collaborate, each with a theme-bias

Following its delivery to the council, they would then outsource / contract two design-leads to enact it and develop a Zoned Masterplan which incorporates the developed Anchor Sites and Speculative Link Sites.

PHASE 1

80

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

omment at tail-end of esign & design leads d to feedback

stakeholders comment on anchor development proposals & design leads respond to feedback

‘ANCHOR SITE DEVELOPMENT’

‘ANCHOR SITE REFINEMENT’

Two Design Voices

stakeholders engage fully to develop link sites from the formalised anchor site proposals

‘LINK SITE DEVELOPMENT’

Multiple Design Voices

JL

= More complexity = More unique place

OT specific collaborative review points between design leads

PHASE 2

= Stronger Genius Loci

PHASE 3

PART 1 // 5.0 Relating New Approach to An Educational Narrative

81

stakeholders as scale is too conduct

‘MASTERPLAN DEVELOPMENT’

Gateshead Tyne Bank (as a year-long project)

Educational Timeline: Adopted In addition to detailing the development and design of the masterplan, the Briefing Document will provide the council with guidance on HOW they (Gateshead Council) should engage & collaborate with their stakeholders in this particular masterplan. It will be founded on past examples & architectural theorem as well as, our own site analysis.

One Design Voice JL + OT design leads collaborate, each with a theme-bias

PHASE 1

82

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

s not engaged yet o big to realistically t consultations

we aim to still engage stakeholders but on a lower intensity level in unorthodox & inventive manners

‘ANCHOR SITE DEVELOPMENT’

‘ANCHOR SITE REFINEMENT’

Two Design Voices

stakeholders engage fully to develop link sites from the formalised anchor site proposals

‘LINK SITE DEVELOPMENT’

Multiple Design Voices

JL

= More complexity = More unique place

OT specific collaborative review points between design leads

PHASE 2

YEAR-LONG PROJECT*

= Stronger Genius Loci

PHASE 3

TAKEN ON BY COUNCIL

PART 1 // 5.0 Relating New Approach to An Educational Narrative

83

Limitations & Considerations The Educational Timeline we are adopting narrows the scope of the masterplan with particular relation to the level and intensity of stakeholder involvement. While we are aware of the impact this could potentially have on the credibility of the project, we have summarised the limitations of this approach and the considerations we have factored in to support the validity of our proposals.

84

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

LIMITATIONS

CONSIDERATIONS

(1)

1. COVID-19 Risk of not having extensive stakeholder consultation & engagement.

2. Timeframe Inability to deliver masterplan to completion following a professional narrative & timeline.

3. Architectural Approach & Methodology Falling into trap of adopting a top-heavy design approach that imposes an idealistic & finite vision for the site.

• Briefing Document will stipulate the necessity for stakeholder engagement. It will provide the council with specific guidance and objective to be obtained.

• It will offer new approaches to the methods that the council will undertake.

• We will still endeavour to access existing resources and host events where possible.

(2)

• The end goal and vehicles used to reach it (Briefing Document, Masterplan, Selective Collaboration & Participatory Design) are still accounted for in both narratives and timelines. It’s only the order in which they happen that changes.

(2 & 3)

• We are setting up the wider framework and ensuring that the crux points (Anchors) are resolved to a level that enables the opportunities (Links) to flourish; enabling the success of the masteprlan.

(3)

• We are still expressing the dualities through a zoning approach; but with a alternate emphasis on consultation. Instead of a focus on stakeholder consultation, we are leaning into consulting with each other and analysing / incorporating its merits.

• The shifts in approach to managing & developing the site still remain (elaborated below).

• The Anchors open up the Links, and these relate & react to each other.

• There are hybrid sites that don’t respond to just one theme.

• The masterplan responds to planning context in order to bridge Newcastle & Gateshead.

PART 1 // 5.0 Relating New Approach to An Educational Narrative

85

6.0

Design Leads ‘Selective Collaboration’ Framework GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

6.1 // Overview The Selective Collaboration framework and resultant dialogue relates back to the speculative nature introduced as part of the proposed approach (see Pg.60). The design leads are forced to make constant changes beyond what they think is the ‘final’ version of their designs and make design moves on a conditional basis until it has been consulted and approved by the other design lead.

The design and methods of the framework are important to devise in order to elevate the dialogue beyond a casual conversation between colleagues. This will also help to highlight the various learning and design development opportunities from working collaboratively.

Furthermore it will help to navigate points of conflict in design between the two leads by offering an alternative perspective with reasoning.

The selective collaboration between the design leads could be extrapolated to be the representation of heavy stakeholder involvement. This is what would have happened had we been able to 86

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

pursue the professional approach in lieu of the educational narrative.

Opposite // Architects as Conscientious Designers Olyvia Tam & Juan Lopez

87

Masterplan Zoning

6.2 // Co-Critiquing Strategies & Methods In order to elevate the dialogue beyond a casual conversation between colleagues we have devised a series of strategies & methods of Selective Collaboration. These will formalise and document the specific collaborative review points between the design leads. The aim is to bolster and increase the rigour of the methodology behind the Educational Narrative.

The strategies & methods can be subdivided into two categories: emotive and analytical: EMOTIVE: 1. Personal Comparisons 2. Intuitive Design Exercises ANALYTICAL: 1. Review Forms 2. (Schematic) Drawings Appraisal 88

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Anchor Site Analysis

Project Massing

Phot

INTUITIVE D EXERCIS

to Studies

DESIGN SES

To be Completed by Reviewer:

Physical Aspects

Top 3 Elements Conveyed Successfully 1.

2.

3.

Interpretations

Top 3 Elements Requiring Further Development 1.

2.

3.

Reflective Conclusion

Additional Comments:

To be Completed by Reviewee:

CO-CRITIQUING

(Review Form Part 1)

Equivalent RIBA Work Stage:

Atmospheric Aspects

PERSONAL COMPARISONS

JL / OT

REVIEW FORMS

JL / OT

(Review Form Part 2)

JL + OT

(Review Form Part 3)

Equivalent RIBA Work Stage: Top 3 Elements Hoping to Convey 1.

2.

3.

Top 3 Elements That Cause Concern 1.

2.

3.

(SCHEMATIC) DRAWINGS APPRAISAL

Additional Comments:

Plans & Sections ‘Trace-Over’

Diagram & Visuals Legibility

The review forms were inspired by the traditional ‘Crit’ format in academia. However, this approach provides a more guided and structured feedback delivery. This blurs the hierarchical boundaries between reviewer and reviewee.

This pushes a stronger collaborative aspect during the design development by encouraging a more open line of dialogue.

To be Completed Together:

Mutually Agreed Priority Action List (for next collaborative review point) 1.

2.

3.

Additional Comments: PART 1 // 6.0 Design Leads ‘Selective Collaboration’ Framework

89

RESOLVED MASTERPLAN

SELECTIVE COLLABORATION

DEVELOPED DESIGN BRIEF

SELECTIVE COLLABORATION

MASSING DEVELOPMENT

6.3 // Co-Critiquing Programme Drawing parallels between professional approach and an educational narrative, we drew inspiration from the accepted model of the ‘RIBA Plan of Work 2020’. By reviewing the criteria for each project stage, we were able to identify the most appropriate milestones to incorporate specific collaborative review points between the design leads.

This formed the basis of the Co-Critiquing Programme shown opposite; ensuring an adequate structure to be taken throughout the project.

SELECTIVE COLLABORATION

DEVELOPED DRAWINGS

SELECTIVE COLLABORATION

FINAL REPRESENTATION

SELECTIVE COLLABORATION

Anchor Site Development & Design

90

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Up to RIBA Stage 0

Site Visit Personal Comparisons

Applies to project scope at Educational Narrative level

Up to RIBA Stage 2

Co-Critique Review Forms

Up to RIBA Stage 3

Co-Critique Review Forms Intuitive Design Exercises Schematic Drawings Appraisal

RIBA Stage 3 / 4

0

1

RIBA Plan of Work 2020

The RIBA Plan of Work organises the process of briefing, designing, delivering, maintaining, operating and using a building into eight stages. It is a framework for all disciplines on construction projects and should be used solely as guidance for the preparation of detailed professional services and building contracts.

Strategic Definition

Preparation and Briefing

Stage Boundaries:

Stage Outcome

The best means of achieving the Client Requirements confirmed

Stages 0-4 will generally be undertaken one after the other.

Stages 4 and 5 will overlap in the Project Programme for most projects.

Stage 5 commences when the contractor takes possession of the site and finishes at Practical Completion.

Stage 6 starts with the handover of the building to the client immediately after Practical Completion and finishes at the end of the Defects Liability Period.

Stage 7 starts concurrently with Stage 6 and lasts for the life of the building.

Planning Note: Planning Applications are generally submitted at the end of Stage 3 and should only be submitted earlier when the threshold of information required has been met. If a Planning Application is made during Stage 3, a midstage gateway should be determined and it should be clear to the project team which tasks and deliverables will be required.

See Overview guidance.

Procurement: The RIBA Plan of Work is procurement neutral – See Overview guidance for a detailed description of how each stage might be adjusted to accommodate the requirements of the Procurement Strategy.

Co-Critique Review Forms Drawings Appraisal

ER

Employer’s Requirements

CP

Contractor’s Proposals

at the end of the stage

Prepare Client Requirements

during the stage

Develop Business Case for feasible options including review of Project Risks and Project Budget

Project Strategies might include: – Conservation (if applicable) – Cost – Fire Safety – Health and Safety – Inclusive Design – Planning – Plan for Use – Procurement – Sustainability See RIBA Plan of Work 2020 Overview for detailed guidance on Project Strategies

Core Statutory Processes

Ratify option that best delivers Client Requirements

Project Brief approved by the client and confirmed that it can be accommodated on the site

Prepare Project Brief including Project Outcomes and Sustainability Outcomes, Quality Aspirations and Spatial Requirements Undertake Feasibility Studies Agree Project Budget

Up to RIBA Stage 4

4

5

Concept Design

Spatial Coordination

Technical Design

Manufacturing and Construction Handover

Architectural Concept approved by the client and aligned to the Project Brief

Architectural and engineering information Spatially Coordinated

The brief remains “live” during Stage 2 and is derogated in response to the Architectural Concept

Agree Project Brief Derogations

Source Site Information including Site Surveys

Undertake Site Appraisals

Prepare Project Programme

Undertake Design Reviews with client and Project Stakeholders

Prepare Project Execution Plan

Prepare stage Design Programme

Undertake Design Studies, Engineering Analysis and Cost Exercises to test Architectural Concept resulting in Spatially Coordinated design aligned to updated Cost Plan, Project Strategies and Outline Specification Initiate Change Control Procedures Prepare stage Design Programme

No design team required for Stages 0 and 1. Client advisers may be appointed to the client team to provide strategic advice and design thinking before Stage 2 commences.

Strategic appraisal of Planning considerations

during the stage:

Planning Building Regulations Health and Safety (CDM)

Prepare and coordinate design team Building Systems information Prepare and integrate specialist subcontractor Building Systems information Prepare stage Design Programme

Finalise Site Logistics Manufacture Building Systems and construct building

7 Use

Rectify defects

Resolve Site Queries as required

Complete initial Aftercare tasks including light touch Post Occupancy Evaluation

Building handover tasks bridge Stages 5 and 6 as set out in the Plan for Use Strategy

Carry out Construction Phase Plan

Initiate collation of health and safety Pre-construction Information

Agree route to Building Regulations compliance

Prepare and submit Planning Application

Discharge precommencement Planning Conditions

Comply with Planning Conditions related to construction

ER

Pre-contract services agreement

Implement Facilities Management and Asset Management Undertake Post Occupancy Evaluation of building performance in use Verify Project Outcomes including Sustainability Outcomes

Comply with Planning Conditions as required

Adaptation of a building (at the end of its useful life) triggers a new Stage 0

Comply with Planning Conditions as required

Prepare Construction Phase Plan Submit form F10 to HSE if applicable Tender

Appoint design team

Undertake review of Project Performance

Inspect Construction Quality

Submit Building Regulations Application

Appoint client team

Hand over building in line with Plan for Use Strategy

Undertake seasonal Commissioning

Undertake Commissioning of building

Building used, operated and maintained efficiently

Stage 7 starts concurrently with Stage 6 and lasts for the life of the building

Monitor progress against Construction Programme

Review design against Building Regulations

Option: submit outline Planning Application

Building handed over, Aftercare initiated and Building Contract concluded

There is no design work in Stage 5 other than responding to Site Queries

Obtain pre-application Planning Advice

Management Contract Construction Management

ER CP

Appoint contractor

CP

Appoint contractor

CP

Appoint contractor

Appoint contractor

Appoint Facilities Management and Asset Management teams, and strategic advisers as needed

Appoint contractor

Contractor-led

at the end of the stage

6

Prepare Building Manual

Traditional

Design & Build 2 Stage

Manufacturing, construction and Commissioning completed

Source pre-application Planning Advice

Design & Build 1 Stage

Information Exchanges

Develop architectural and engineering technical design

Specialist subcontractor designs are prepared and reviewed during Stage 4

See Planning Note for guidance on submitting a Planning Application earlier than at end of Stage 3

Procurement Route

All design information required to manufacture and construct the project completed Stage 4 will overlap with Stage 5 on most projects

Prepare Architectural Concept incorporating Strategic Engineering requirements and aligned to Cost Plan, Project Strategies and Outline Specification

Review Feedback from previous projects

ER

Preferred bidder

Client Requirements

Project Brief

Project Brief Derogations

Signed off Stage Report

Manufacturing Information

Business Case

Feasibility Studies

Signed off Stage Report

Project Strategies

Construction Information

Site Information

Project Strategies

Final Specifications

Project Budget

Outline Specification

Updated Outline Specification

Project Programme

Cost Plan

Procurement Strategy Responsibility Matrix Information Requirements

Stakeholder Engagement (TBD)

3

Projects span from Stage 1 to Stage 6; the outcome of Stage 0 may be the decision to initiate a project and Stage 7 covers the ongoing use of the building.

If the outcome determines that a building is the best means of achieving the Client Requirements, the client proceeds to Stage 1

Core Tasks

2

Core RIBA Plan of Work terms are defined in the RIBA Plan of Work 2020 Overview glossary and set in Bold Type.

Updated Cost Plan Planning Application

Residual Project Strategies Building Regulations Application

Building Manual including Health and Safety File and Fire Safety Information Practical Completion certificate including Defects List

Feedback on Project Performance

Feedback from Post Occupancy Evaluation

Final Certificate

Updated Building Manual including Health and Safety File and Fire Safety Information as necessary

Feedback from light touch Post Occupancy Evaluation

Asset Information If Verified Construction Information is required, verification tasks must be defined

Further guidance and detailed stage descriptions are included in the RIBA Plan of Work 2020 Overview.

© RIBA 2020

RIBA Plan of Work 2020

Co-Critique Review Forms

PART 1 // 6.0 Design Leads ‘Selective Collaboration’ Framework

91

6.4 // Stakeholder Engagement Opportunities With the structure of the Educational narrative, it is imperative to establish feasible methods to conduct stakeholder engagement to ensure the credibility of the project. Taking inspiration from UN Global Studio and their various virtual methods (particularly under COVID-19 circumstances), we have devised the following possible strategies: 1. Council’s social media takeover (online polls between two options to show a preference providing a focussed response).

2. Online surveys/questionnaire in online forums.

3. Public Miro board: collection of ‘Build Your Own Park’ (post-card sketches of what locals wish to see included in the speculative proposals) and ‘Local’s Scrapbook’ (locals can connect with each other by understanding common views and memories towards the site).

4. Impromptu Conversations with locals passing by.

92

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Given the opportunity, we also aim to tap into existing resource banks - i.e. previous council consultations with local communities. This will ground our project in existing opinions and views towards the site to be expanded on.

1

3

2

4

PART 1 // 6.0 Design Leads ‘Selective Collaboration’ Framework

93

PART TWO (2)

GATESHEAD TYNE BANK

Resolved Elements

7.0 / Gateshead Tyne Bank Masterplan 8.0 / Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

7.0

Gateshead Tyne Bank Masterplan GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

7.1 // Concept Overview The masterplan elaborates on the traditional model of having multiple proposals spread across a large site working together towards a common goal.

Our approach to masterplan introduces a series of designed proposals and elements, called ‘Anchors’ and speculative elements that are derivative of the Anchors called ‘Links’.

The anchors will be resolved by the design leads as these are the catalysts for the successful re-establishment of site identity. Their aim is to set up a series of guidelines for future proposals that will be presented as speculative at this stage; but will be developed further at the point of stakeholder engagement via the council.

These Anchors (and eventual Links) will have a common thread and respond between each other by working holistically and consciously of the wider site activity. This will ultimately push each of the site 96

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

themes & identities in a synergistic manner.

MASTERPLAN SET OF DESIGNED PROPOSALS / ELEMENTS. ‘ANCHORS’

SITE

COMMON THREAD BETWEEN ANCHORS

SET OF UNLOCKED CONFIGURABLE / MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS. ‘LINKS’

PART 2 // 7.0 Gateshead Tyne Bank Masterplan

97

JL

Industrial Heritage Bias

OT

The Arts Bias

7.2 // Masterplan Zoning Development To begin to propose how we might develop the site in relation to our themes, we began to do a series of intuition zonings on trace.

Working individually, each adopting a theme bias. We then came together to compare our initial thoughts and began to combine our intentions in a cohesive singular format.

We carried on refining the intuition zoning for a few more digitised iterations, shown in the following spreads, until we were both satisfied that we had reached the optimal arrangement for both themes.

This was particularly helpful as it enabled us to directly compare, contrast our initial zoning approaches. Throughout the process there were points of agreement and conflict; by establishing an open dialogue between design-leads we were either able to justify or compromise on our decisions through gaining a different perspective.

98

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

DESIGN APPROACH

1ST ITERATION

2ND ITERATION

3RD ITERATION

4TH ITERATION

5TH & 6TH ITERATIONS Developed further at a larger scale...

INDIVIDUAL INTUITION ZONING

COLLABORATIVE INTUITION ZONING

PART 2 // 7.0 Gateshead Tyne Bank Masterplan

99

5th Iteration

Pre-Digitised Collaborative Intuition Zoning

100

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Zoning Appraisal

Here we decided to swap the location of the industry and arts zoning. This will bring back industry back to its historic home. The arts would then be able to have a greater degree of interaction with the adjacent residential area

PART 2 // 7.0 Gateshead Tyne Bank Masterplan

101

6th Iteration

102

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Zoning Appraisal

We’ve adapted the Staiths as a peripheral zone, as we felt that a high level strategy would be better. This would help to open up the already insular community of the Staiths. This then allowed us to incorporate the cultural and arts district of the Baltic Quarter, extending both key themes through.

’

ECT

NN ‘CO

‘TIDY’ ‘ADAPT’

PART 2 // 7.0 Gateshead Tyne Bank Masterplan

103

Opposite Masterplan Edge & Wider Context Zoning

7.3 // Wider Context Analysis By looking at the wider zoning context of Gateshead, this helped us to either further confirm or question our zoning approach and placement of site themes up to that point.

We took particular care along the edge conditions to situate complimentary activity between masterplan and existing context.

Process Trace Sketchwork (Collaborative)

104

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Opposite Gateshead Tyne Bank Final Zoning

7.4 // Developed Zoning Following the investigation of the wider context of the masterplan, it informed the final iteration of its zoning. The highlights shown opposite have been elaborated below.

1. Re-using & adapting existing industry site.

2. In alignment with existing intentions, finalise restoration of Dunston Staiths to enable full public access and re-position it as a protected Industrial Heritage Site. A once industrial site, it is now used for the inspiration and display of artworks; embodying the two main themes driving the project.

3. Waste Management zone acting as a social condenser between fractured residential communities.

4. ‘Tyne Bank Culture Corridor’ linking Newcastle & Gateshead.

5. New transport link increasing accessibility between masterplan and town centres.

6. Industry zone along the riverbank for material transport.

7. Connecting The Arts zone along the riverbank towards the ‘Baltic 106

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Quarter’, an arts & culture hub.

8. Industry zone served by main road with adjacent green verge acting as a buffer to residential area.

9. Waste Management zone to engage local school with ideas about sustainability.

10.The Arts zone as an entrance gateway for residential area; creating an artistic route and ‘screen’ to reduce noise levels from nearby industry.

Opposite Gateshead Tyne Bank Emerging Districts

7.5 // Gateshead Tyne Bank Districts Having defined the final zoning of the masterplan; we felt it necessary to sub-divide the site perimeter into areas that have a common focus of activity, called ‘Districts’. By doing so, it establishes an inferred framework as a guide for any future developments beyond the initial masterplan scope. This grouping will consolidate appropriate resources and infrastructure for each district’s activity.

The arrangement of the districts was informed by existing site conditions (current use, road and rail network, future planning) and the organic ‘break’ in the masterplan zoning.

The designation of district activity would later on help suggest the proposed aspects complementary to each district.

Process Trace Sketchwork (Collaborative)

108

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Opposite Connecting Districts via Public Transport

Following research into the existing public transport infrastructure, it was uncovered that there is a bus route that supposedly runs through all the districts. However, due to a lack of demand, the bus route is re-routed where it omits most of the masterplan.

Our aim is that through the reintroduction of activity back into this part of Gateshead, the original bus route can be reinstated. It will do so by making use of existing infrastructure to better connect the districts with both sides of the river in a straightforward manner.

The potential transport link would be centrally located within the wider masterplan. It would work to tap into the existing Metro and Rail system of Gateshead and Newcastle to make the scheme more easily accessible from greater distances.

110

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Opposite Connecting Districts via Cycle Network

Our aim is to use the National Cycle Network that runs through the edge of the site to encourage environmentally friendly ways to access the site. This also sets up the potential for it to work in conjunction with the proposed transport link.

112

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Opposite Connecting Districts via Road Network

The districts that rely heavily on the delivery and exporting of materials have been placed to align with the existing major roads.

This has been done to avoid congestion and excessive greenhouse emissions in spite of the increased activity in this part of Gateshead.

Furthermore, by isolating public and private transport, it will help to improve pedestrian safety and movement through the scheme.

114

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Opposite Gateshead Tyne Bank District Cores

7.6 // Identifying District Cores After identifying the districts, we began to speculate at the areas of highest complexity within them. This would inform where we situate our ‘District Cores’ to which we would aim for a greater level of resolve.

Following their analysis, this would inform where we would have our designated sites of activity.

116

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Opposite Gateshead Tyne Bank Spheres of Influence

7.7 // Masterplan Sphere of Influence As the image opposite shows, the perimeter of the project has grown far beyond the original as established in the collective site report.

This formed the foundation for our proposal.

Through our research, it became evident that in order to better develop and manage the park itself, it was paramount to look beyond the its accepted boundary. By incorporating nearby areas, we are able to stop designing for an insular response, but one that responds and reacts to its context through a variety of sites.

The result is a masterplan whose sphere of influence will attribute positive changes on a range of scales: 1. Immediate Sphere of Influence: Gateshead Riverside Park 2. Wider Sphere of Influence: Gateshead’s Local Communities and town centre.

3. Urban Sphere of Influence: Connecting Newcastle & Gateshead

118

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Opposite // Clockwise from Top Left Southbank Centre, Leake Street Arches, House of Vans London

7.8 // Masterplan Precedents London South Bank We were greatly inspired by London South Bank as its geographical situation greatly resembles ours, bound by a major river to its northern edge. Furthermore, we were drawn to the notion that you know you’re in the South Bank without explicit delineation. There are no defined barriers, predefined routes or forced access points; just a specific atmosphere and energy surrounding the area with natural connection points and desire lines.

The ‘House of Vans’ and ‘Leake Street Arches’ re-appropriates the former Old Vic tunnels underneath the London Waterloo Railway Station to celebrate graffiti art, skateboard, and street culture - consists of almost 30,000 square feet of unused railway tunnels. It serves as a precedent for celebrating discarded or waste spaces in an authentic manner that accurately reflect the culture of the place. This relates to our site as graffiti art is prevalent on the King Edward Bridge. It too has underused space beneath the bridge with brick arches.

120

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

“...Here at the South Bank we pride ourselves on being the cultural heart of London, showcasing the best of innovative art and design and supporting emerging talent....”

PART 2 // 7.0 Gateshead Tyne Bank Masterplan

121

Opposite // Clockwise from Top Left Map of the Tide and Art Trail, Quantum Cloud (Antony Gormley), Head in the Wind (Allen Jones), Hydra & Kali Mermaid (Damien Hirst) and Seafood Disco (Studio Morrison)

Greenwich Peninsula Greenwich Peninsula is an arts & cultural district that will house 1,800 individuals from creative industries.

The most relevant aspect to our project is ‘The Tide’, an elevated cultural riverside linear park on the peninsula reminiscent to the New York ‘High Line’.

‘The Tide’ connects to a sculptural arts trail, exhibiting sculptures from Antony Gormley and Damien Hirst amongst others. A strong parallelism can be drawn between this and the Riverside Sculpture Park & Trail as to how it could be revitalised.

122

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

“...The Tide, a linear walkway that connects to the Riverside path, which will guide you on an inspirational sculpture trail taking in artworks by Antony Gormley, Damien Hirst and Morag Myerscough...”

PART 2 // 7.0 Gateshead Tyne Bank Masterplan

123

Opposite // Clockwise from Top Left Original slaughterhouse structure, Versatile space based on steel modules, exhibition spaces.

El Matadero This precedent re-uses Madrid’s industrial slaughterhouse into a cultural centre hosting theatre & music performances, photography exhibitions and cinema nights.

The interventions specifically retained traces of the past to reinforce the experimental nature of the creative practices that were to be housed there. The idea of preserving the past is expressed through the original structure that is retained, as seen by the flying buttresses and columns.

This can be referenced as we are looking to re-use existing structures; whether that is disused & abandoned buildings, or part of the bridges’ structure.

This also serves as a precedent that actively reveals a place’s industrial past through the arts, connecting the two key site themes.

124

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

“... The basic concept behind the project was the search for balance between respect for the identity of the place itself and the addition of new elements needed to effectively transform it into a space destined to a new use.....”

PART 2 // 7.0 Gateshead Tyne Bank Masterplan

125

Opposite // Clockwise from Top Left

8.0

Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

Primary Route Secondary Route Proposed Route

GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

Connections Desire Lines Desire Elements Barriers Proposed Desire Lines

8.1 // District Cores Development & Analysis D1.1a (Gas Works) + D1.1b (Industrial Estate) + D1.1c (Green Field) Having identified the zones and districts on a wider scale, we zoomed in to the various district cores and started to analyse their various opportunities and limitations. This started to inform initial ideas on which sites (expected sites) that we would focus on in Semester 2.

We have split the analysis into four categories; Pedestrian Routes, Desire Lines & Connections, Environmental Qualities, and Expected Sites, and have applied this analysis to each district.

The main takeaway from the analysis of D1.1a, b, and c, is that the industrial estates currently sits disconnected to each other. This could be rectified through a new pedestrian route, improving access and desire lines across the site. It was also noted that whilst the green field is expansive, desire lines are blocked off by thick rows of trees.

These could be cut back to create visual connections from the main road into the secluded footpath.

126

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Sun (+ve) Sun (-ve) Wind Noise Expected Site Expected Site Speculative Entrance

Pedestrian Routes

Desire Lines & Connections

Expected Sites

Environmental Qualities PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

127

Opposite // Clockwise from Top Left Primary Route Secondary Route Proposed Route Connections Desire Lines Desire Elements Barriers Proposed Desire Lines Sun (+ve)

D2.1 (Elsington Field) Similar to the previous district, we found that a more direct pedestrian route was needed to create a more defined entrance from the main road. This would encourage more visitors to walk through the field, as opposed to around it. Despite the expansiveness of the field, there are a few barriers. One being the large collection of trees that block off views and desire lines from the pedestrian path coming from the park. Pedestrians would have to encounter a sharp and abrupt turn before reaching the field, creating a stark and unpleasant contrast.

Thus, altering the pedestrian route slightly with the cutting back of some trees could create a slow, meandering path. This would enhance the overall experience walking through the park, maintaining the slow pace of the path throughout. As there are train tracks as well as a main vehicular road on the edge of the site, we identified that those would be the main source of noise. Any new proposals would need to take that into consideration and find ways of mitigating that.

128

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Sun (-ve) Wind Noise Expected Site Expected Site Speculative Entrance

Pedestrian Routes

Desire Lines & Connections

Expected Sites

Environmental Qualities PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

129

Opposite // Clockwise from Top Left Primary Route Secondary Route Proposed Route Connections Desire Lines Desire Elements Barriers Proposed Desire Lines Sun (+ve)

D2.2a (Redheugh Bridge) + D2.2b (King Edward VII Bridge) In order to better connect Newcastle and Gateshead on foot, we thought that a pedestrian footbridge would be appropriate. Although the Redheugh Bridge does provide pedestrian access, it is primarily catered towards vehicles. This new connection could potentially be a low-level, pedestrian friendly route that aims to seamlessly and directly connect the opposing bank to the centre of the park. This would also enhance desire lines across the river, allowing the layering of the bridges to be viewed at the best vantage point.

The unused space behind the High Level Bridge arches is a site that has great potential to be transformed. The arches form natural thresholds that the eye is drawn to. Thus, greater connections can be made between the arches and the surrounding area. Major issues that would need combating is the loud noise from the trains running above, and the lack of sunlight reaching the dark crevices of the archways.

130

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Sun (-ve) Wind Noise Expected Site Expected Site Speculative Entrance

Pedestrian Routes

Desire Lines & Connections

Expected Sites

Environmental Qualities PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

131

Opposite // Clockwise from Top Left Primary Route Secondary Route Proposed Route Connections Desire Lines Desire Elements Barriers Proposed Desire Lines Sun (+ve)

D3.1a (Ochre Yards) + D3.1b (Pipewllgate Car Park) This analysis highlights the non-existent connections between transport links and the park. As identified earlier, buses do not run past the site in reality and the closest Metro station is the Gateshead Interchange.

There is a steep change in topography from the river bank to the edge of the Ochre Yards, isolating the park and preventing local residents interacting with it. Hence, there is potential to create a pedestrian path that could aim to span across the topography, enhancing accessibility and forming new desire lines.

Seeing the lack of transport link, we initially had ideas to introduce a new Metro station that could connect Newcastle Central Station and the Gateshead Interchange. Upon reflection, we found that this may not be the most feasible as a Metro station will require more infrastructure than this site is able to offer. However, we still felt that the lack of accessibility calls for the need of a transport link. Following this analysis, we started to research other ways of resolving this.

132

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Sun (-ve) Wind Noise Expected Site Expected Site Speculative Entrance

Pedestrian Routes

Desire Lines & Connections

Expected Sites

Environmental Qualities PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

133

Opposite // Clockwise from Top Left Primary Route Secondary Route Proposed Route Connections Desire Lines Desire Elements Barriers Proposed Desire Lines Sun (+ve)

D4.1 (Baltic Square) We focused on exploring the potential of establishing connections through this analysis. As the Baltic Square acts as the central hub for The Arts, it attracts the most pedestrian footfall from Newcastle.

To create a more curated route towards the BALTIC from the park, we explored ideas surrounding the pedestrianization of the main road (Hillgate) leading up to it, and creating a pedestrian footbridge running along the Gateshead riverbank. We speculate that this footbridge could be extended in the future to include Newcastle, accommodating the large crowds that tend to occur during the Sunday markets. This would eventually create a loop of centralized activity that would seamlessly connect both sides of the river. Lastly, we also found that the steep topography of the Sage obstructs certain views, casts heavy shadows on Hillgate, and acts as a wind tunnel, ultimately creating an unpleasant pedestrian experience. We aim to rectify this by finding methods of managing the topography to frame views and thresholds towards the Sage and the BALTIC. 134

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Sun (-ve) Wind Noise Expected Site Expected Site Speculative Entrance

Pedestrian Routes

Desire Lines & Connections

Expected Sites

Environmental Qualities PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

135

Opposite // Walking Route Taken The map names the stop-off points in relation to the names given to the expected Sites of Activity stated in section 8.1.

Key for Written Elements Agreement Disagreement Key for Visual Elements Same Different

8.2 // Sites of Activity Personal Comparisons The next step was to visit the District Cores with a particular focus on the expected Sites of Activity identified as part of the initial analysis.

Our aim was to confirm or question our initial thoughts & expectations of the site qualities as well as the suitability of the site boundaries.

Although we did the route together, for safety purposes, we chose to not interact while documenting our experiences. This would prevent us from being influenced by the other design-lead. We developed reflection forms that we would complete while at the stop-off points in order to guide our thinking and so we had direct aspects of the site to cross-reference during the comparison period afterward.

For each of the written categories, we drew lines that represent agreement or disagreement while the images highlight what visual elements we were both drawn to and which were unique to us.

The forthcoming pages are a record of this while the final spreads 136

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

consolidate our findings. Ultimately we will have to discuss any sites which have greater degrees of disagreement in order to establish an approach in which both of us are in agreement of. To do so, we will have to elaborate upon, understand and analyse why we do not agree in the first place by taking into considering a different point of view.

Site 1 D4.1 (Baltic Square)

Juan’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Sheltered from the wind.

2. Little traffic noise.

3. Good amount of daylight, even in winter.

Negative Site Attributes 1. It’s very empty - people just walk through in a transient manner.

2. You can access the Sage but there’s no dedicated signposting.

3. Very little public seating or amenities.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day

and/or

Night) Yes.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

Ambivalent. I don’t feel like the site actively welcomes anyone or anything. But it also doesn’t actively make me feel like I’m trespassing.

What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) Anchor; could be seen as a gateway or signpost marker for our scheme. Intervention; not enough space to build something.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

Collaborative, the square is at the intersection of an art gallery that is housed in a former industrial site; while the artistically designed Millennium Bridge has callbacks to the Tyne industry and cities’ development.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

Strong relationship with upcoming planning development of Gateshead Quays. At the moment it feels disconnected to the main areas of our masterplan, so perhaps create a sight line or direct access route.

138

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

D4.1 (Baltic

Site 1 Square)

Olyvia’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Open square with lots of exposure to sunlight.

2. Lively atmosphere with many artistic patterns painted on the pavements.

3. Adequate stepped seating that provides views out onto the river, The BALTIC and The Sage.

Negative Site Attributes 1. The square being a outdoor events space has no real shelter for audience/performers, exposing them to strong winds and heavy rainfall.

2. Pavements are very slippery, creating an unsafe environment for children playing.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Yes, during both the day and night.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

Yes. What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) I envision this site being an anchor site that focuses on the curation of a new sculpture area. We had previously discussed taking the existing sculptures and rearranging them in a new layout as the existing sculpture trail is not allowing the collection of sculptures to be exhibited in the best light. This intervention would highlight the value of the sculptures, linking them with the wider artistic agenda of the area.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

I see this site as a collaborative project that acts as a point along the pedestrian ‘culture’ corridor that spans the river. This will better connect the two banks and situate our individual anchor projects along this route.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

There are currently already good visual and physical connections across the river (Millennium Bridge) and towards The Sage (stepped seating). Thus, I do not feel that there are any concerns with needing more.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

139

Other Comments The site has huge amounts of potential but at the moment it is under-utilised. It could benefit from provision for adverse weather, like a canopy or sheltered seating. I feel like it needs a direct purpose, something to guide or inform the activity that is meant to happen in this part of the city. I also feel like it is a nodal point in accessing Gateshead, as a result it should guide people better through this part of the city. At the moment it is pleasant but boring.

Furthermore, the glazed rooms at either end of the bridge are empty and perhaps could be adapted to become a key attraction within this site of our masterplan.

140

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Other Comments I think this site acts as a suitable location for the rearrangement of the sculpture park. The current problem with the sculpture trail does not pertain much to the value of the sculptures, but rather the curation of them. Hence, by placing them next to The BALTIC, the existing hub for arts and culture in Gateshead, it would prevent them from being seen as out of place and context.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

141

Site 2 D3.1a (Ochre Yards)

Juan’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Quiet.

2. Well Maintained.

3. Good passive surveillance from residences, makes it feel safe.

Negative Site Attributes 1. No daylight.

2. Views are blocked by wall.

3. Public square feels like an afterthought and is badly realised.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day

and/or

Night) Yes.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

No. There’s nothing drawing me there or making me feel like I’ve arrived at a destination. Given the lack of communal green space surrounding the area does that make this a wasted space or opportunity?

What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) Anchor; important to link our masterplan and other sites to nearby existing transport infrastructure.

Building; there is enough space and current ongoing construction works make this realistic, while a building will provide sufficient opportunity for a successful schedule of accommodation.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

Collaborative, perhaps as a testing case study. It doesn’t necessarily feel like it has a bias towards either theme and it would be a logical testing scenario for the co-critique framework and co-design approach.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and views of Newcastle are completely hidden because of the wall.

142

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

D3.1a (Ochre

Site 2 Yards)

Olyvia’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. The close-proximity to nearby residential blocks, catering to most residents.

2. Good access to vehicular and pedestrian roads which would be beneficial for introducing any shuttle bus or cycle routes.

Negative Site Attributes 1. There is a tall wall blocking views from the courtyard to the river and opposing riverbank.

2. The tall wall and residential buildings create a strong sense of enclosure, almost encircling those stood in the courtyard.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Generally, yes, if there is ample sunlight the day. However, I imagine I would not feel safe in the evenings, as the towering wall and buildings make the space feel quite enclosed despite the open courtyard.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

No. What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) Visiting the site has confirmed initial ideas of creating a transport link to better connect residents of Ochre Yards to the rest of Newcastle and Gateshead. In doing so, it would provide better connectivity between Ochre Yards and Gateshead riverbank.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

I envision this site as a collaborative project, being a high-level strategy that we will establish early on. This will provide a new point of connectivity that the rest of our project and interventions can stem from.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

New visual connections towards the river and opposite bank could be made by cutting back some of the trees, as well as reducing the height of some parapet walls.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

143

Other Comments This is a site with huge potential. I feel the best way forward is to respond and react to ongoing planning and building of more housing which will only exacerbate the already significant reliance on car transport in and out of the area. There will be a demand for incoming residents to access both town centres but current public infrastructure is not easily accessible. This supports the case for our initial desires to place a transport link there. Furthermore, the transport link will be located fairly centrally within the masterplan for equidistant access from other sites.

144

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Other Comments I think the site serves as a great opportunity to establish a connection between the lower half the Gateshead bank to the higher half, where Ochre Yards currently sits. This will not only provide greater accessibility for residents to access Newcastle and the Gateshead town centre, but would also make the riverside park feel less disjointed from the rest of the town. Aside from the tall wall blocking views, another area that felt particular isolating is the side street adjacent to the courtyard. Despite the lower parapet walls, the feeling of enclosure stems from the cluster of tree branches blocking views to the river and King Edward VII bridge. The gaps in between the branches makes it feel like the view beyond should be more permeable than it is, creating a feeling of uncertainty. Hence, this should be considered when establishing connections across the topography.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

145

Site 3 D2.1 (Elsington Field)

Juan’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. A lot of natural daylight 2. Presently vacant with good access to road network.

3. Strong community links to be utilised with school and nearby residences.

Negative Site Attributes 1. Lacks natural ‘main’ entrance.

2. Edges of site lack activity, might be difficult to develop it in such a manner that it becomes a destination.

3. Exposed to wind.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Yes, but I wouldn’t feel safe at night. There is no public lighting and there is no active or passive surveillance of the site.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

No. Although the site is vacant, because it is overgrown, it actually becomes a physical and visual barrier when experienced in person.

What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) Link; utilise the strong communal presence to engage the people to develop the site in tandem with designleads. As the locals become aware and invested in the site it increases the chance at becoming a destination.

Building; there is enough space and its proximity road network facilitates access in order to draw people from a wider sphere of influence.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

Collaborative as I envision it being designed with stakeholder engagement.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

I feel that it should directly acknowledge and interact with the school.

146

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Site 3 D2.1 (Elsington Field)

Olyvia’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Large open space with lots of daylight.

2. Currently has no use aside from being a green field.

3. High visibility across the field.

Negative Site Attributes 1. Lots of rubbish or fly-tipping present, along with many cracked paving stones and rubble.

2. Extremely overgrown grass, creating unclear paths and apprehension when walking across field.

3. Strong smell of rubbish present.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Yes, during the day. I think I would feel safe at night as well if the grass was not overgrown, making the visibility across the field even clearer.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

No, because the large amounts of rubbish on site make it very unappealing.

What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) This field could be a link site that has an educational aspect, connecting it with the nearby Elsington Primary School. For the purposes of encouraging art in education, I think a building scale would be most appropriate.

This would hopefully create a dedicated artistic hub for students in the primary school.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

The site would be collaborative with the input from teachers and students at the primary school. It would be important to understand the specific spaces they envision needing to accommodate their learning activities.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

The site generally feels connected with nearby areas due to proximity to the school and the residential houses on Rose Street. However, cutting back some of the vegetation would combat uncertainties crossing the field.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

147

Other Comments The lack of natural entrance points and visual markers means that there is no specific route to guide me through it - you can easily lose your sense of direction. Furthermore, the vacant site (formerly Clasper Village) site suffers from a similar condition of Gateshead Riverside Park - fly tipping, further signalling that the notion of psychological and physical waste extends far beyond the park and is perhaps symptomatic of Gateshead at large. Having said that, I feel that this should be the ‘main’ Link site. This is because of its preexisting strong links to community, in particular the school. It could provide the incubator between education and future generations that could continue co-developing and safeguarding the masterplan site. This illustrates the urgency behind our masterplan and its aims but also the rationale behind choosing this as a site of activity.

148

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Other Comments This vacancy of this site provides the potential to establish interactions with the primary school, perhaps introducing various arts and crafts skills in relation to waste management. As the school has their existing ‘eco-warriors’ scheme, this site could serve as an extension of that sustainable agenda. I only experienced the feeling of isolation when I looked back on the path that I had taken, seeing the tower block on St. Cuthbert’s Road standing on its own. The lone tower peeking over the overgrown grass made me confront the expansiveness of the field. Hence, the general upkeep of the site should be maintained to evoke a safer environment.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

149

Site 4 - Limited Access D1.1a (Gas Works)

Juan’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Direct access to site from a road.

2. There is a wall screening-off the site that celebrates the site’s industrial heritage using community drawings.

3. The site lies relatively vacant, primed for redevelopment.

Negative Site Attributes 1. It is adjacent to an active industrial site that creates a lot of noise - limiting use of this site.

2. The road is also fairly heavily trafficked and used by the adjacent industry which adds to noise levels.

3. Natural daylight levels couldn’t be assessed because the site was inaccessible to the public.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Ambivalent, because site is not open to public access.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

No, as the site is not open to public access.

What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) Link; due to its proximity to the nearby industry and nearby residential communities, this is ideally placed to bridge the gap between the fractured communities of Gateshead as well as the themes of Industry & The Arts to reconcile them via a Waste Management focus. Building; in the form of a light-touch, high level strategy; while its proximity road network facilitates deliveries of waste materials.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

Collaborative as I envision it being designed with stakeholder engagement.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

I feel that this site should have a primary focus on the inter-personal connections between communities with a secondary focus on blurring the preconceived tension/incompatibility between Industry and The Arts.

150

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Site 4 - Limited Access D1.1a (Gas Works)

Olyvia’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. One linear road with a high brick wall, being a good buffer for noise separation.

2. Some areas seem unused and vacant, being a good site for new proposal.

3. Good exposure to sunlight, creating opportunities for a pleasant working environment for inhabitants.

Negative Site Attributes 1. The ground consisted of many pools of water, suggesting that drainage is an issue.

2. There are only rubbish skips on site, perhaps being an existing area for rubbish collection/dump from nearby industrial buildings.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Yes, as access was limited. I think the fact that I could not access the site made me feel safe knowing that I’m simply an outsider observing, as opposed to being enclosed with industrial processes surrounding me.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

No. What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) This could be an anchor building site due to its vacant state. Its straightforward topography would be able to accommodate a range of industrial activities and processes. The proximity to other industrial buildings could provide opportunities to share resources and systems.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

This site could be an individual project catered to the industrial or waste management theme.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

Despite the gated entrance (most likely for security reasons), it still allows the public to peer in and observe the various activities on the site - I do not think there are any urgent connections that need to be made.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

151

Other Comments Given the rich industrial heritage of this site, I wonder if the approach towards its design, spatial arrangement or use strategy could perhaps take inspiration from its historic use. Furthermore, while at present it is screened-off from public view with a community art wall that details the site history; I wonder how this could be reconfigured or adapted so that it actually works to invite people into the space as opposed to keeping people out.

152

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Other Comments As there was limited opportunity to visit the site, there was not much to comment on. However, the site’s vacancy and proximity to other industrial buildings offers the benefit of sharing resources and infrastructure if a new type of industry was housed there. It would also act as a good site for waste management, dealing with commercial waste from the industrial estate, and household waste from nearby residential communities.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

153

Site 5 - Limited Access D1.1b (Industrial Estate)

Juan’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Direct access to site from a road.

2. The site showed signs of activity beyond the perimeter wall, showing the demand for industry in the area.

3. A river that leads into the Tyne runs along the edge of the site, could be potential material transport route.

Negative Site Attributes 1. It is nearby to various residential communities who might actually wish for the industry to leave the site.

2. The type of industry might be polluting and might need to be adapted to fit into the ethos of the project.

3. Natural daylight levels couldn’t be assessed because the site was inaccessible to the public.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Ambivalent, because site is not open to public access.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

No, as the site is not open to public access.

What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) Link; it would probably be one of the final elements of the masterplan that responds to the other sites. This is because it would require a slow phased transition to a new type of sustainable industry for an urban setting.

Building; I expect that whatever design is proposed on this site, it will re-use the majority of the existing structures with some new additions or extensions.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

Collaborative as I envision it being designed with stakeholder engagement.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

How to utilise the waterway adjacent to the site to provide it with an alternative transportation route via the Tyne River. Furthermore, how the product from this site could link to others on the masterplan.

154

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Site 5 - Limited Access D1.1b (Industrial Estate)

Olyvia’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Dedicated space for various industries, buildings could share resources for heavy industrial processing.

2. Presence of River Team running through it, which could be used for transport of materials or resources.

3. Main road running against it that could also serve as convenient material transport.

Negative Site Attributes 1. The area seemed quite run-down.

2. There seemed to be an unsuccessful effort in conveying the industrial heritage on its boundary wall.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Yes, as access was limited. I think the fact that I could not access the site made me feel safe knowing that I’m simply an outsider observing, as opposed to being enclosed with industrial processes surrounding me.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

No. What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) I envision that this site could either remain as it is or introduce a new form of industry, suggesting either Anchor or Link. The current buildings serve a purpose that appears to be running successfully, hence any new proposals could respond or aim to establish a connection with it. However, a new type of industry could make the argument for reducing the impact of steel manufacturing on the environment as it makes it less accessible.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

More collaborative. I would be interested to see how conversations with locals could provide insight in to how the type of incoming industry benefits the local community - e.g. establishing new job opportunities.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

The walls and gates encloses the site. Whilst I can understand the need for security, privacy, and noise control, the limited public interaction prevents the chances of industry playing an active role in the site’s identity.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

155

Other Comments I was pleasantly surprised to see that the previous site was screened off using an art & history wall that celebrated the works of kids and residents from the local communities. This suggests that the local community at the very least appreciate or respect that particular industry site - however it is not clear if this is only because it is not functioning anymore and not producing additional noise, traffic and pollution as this one is. It would be interesting to understand how they feel about this site that is still active and see if their feelings are any similar. Finally, as access to this site was limited, I would like to know if any of my views and comments presented here would change following a second visit that permits me to go beyond the boundary. It is worth reiterating that the forthcoming development on this site will be informed on a better understanding of the type of industry present there at the moment; as well as understanding socio-economic landscape of the industrial sector framed within an urban necessity.

156

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Other Comments The current placement of this industrial estate is appropriate and suitable. Whilst I do not know if the River Teams is currently being used for material transport, it should certainly be utilized. I think this site can either be left as it is, or could be used to introduce a new form of more industry that is more sustainable and eco-friendly.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

157

Site 6 D1.1c (Green Field)

Juan’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Good levels of natural daylight.

2. It was well sheltered from wind.

3. The edges are lined with trees which make for a pleasant environment to be preserved.

Negative Site Attributes 1. The site itself is relatively tucked away with mediocre access infrastructure in place.

2. There was significant road noise from the nearby main road and industrial estate.

3. At the moment it is just an empty field, without designated use or purpose.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Yes, but perhaps less so at night. The area seemed quiet but it is overlooked by the residential tower block and the sports activity centre adjacent to it that provides additional lighting at night from the playing fields.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

Yes, the public footpath that runs along it encourages people to go in and explore the site.

What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) Link; its proximity to the site that I envision having a focus on Waste Management that engages and interacts with the local community could create a symbiotic relationship between the two. Intervention; the fact that its present condition is pleasant to be in, should be preserved; rendering a building inappropriate - however an ever changing intervention developed with/by the locals would be more in keeping with the surroundings.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

Collaborative as I envision it being designed with stakeholder engagement.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

A stronger interaction with the public footpath that runs along it - so that the activity from within the site spills out onto there. This could then create some kind of ‘corridor’ that could carry through the masterplan.

158

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Site 6 D1.1c (Green Field)

Olyvia’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Open and expansive space.

2. Good exposure to sunlight.

3. Has no current use beyond a green field.

Negative Site Attributes 1. Accessibility is not the best, one of the main footpaths leading to the field is relatively secluded.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day Yes.

and/or

Night)

Do You Feel Welcomed?

It depends on which footpath was taken.

What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) I envision this being an anchor site, but at an intervention scale adopting a light-touch with a series of demountable or adaptable elements. I can imagine temporary structures being built for different community events, e.g. Sunday markets, local arts exhibitions, outdoor performances, festival spaces etc.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

This site is most likely an individual project, with aspects of collaboration with local artists and sculptors as opposed to the stakeholders themselves.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

The main connection would be drawing in and interacting with nearby residential communities. It can act as a gateway on the southern edge to attract people into the park.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

159

Other Comments While it could be argued that the original site (the field) is a blank canvas, the public footpath that runs along it, is a rich tapestry full of opportunity and potential. As we continued on our journey through all the sites I found myself really drawn to all the moments a person encounters through it: be it building edges, open spaces and dark underpasses; tucked away behind houses that is constantly responding to the changing seasons as it follows a narrow tree lined edge. This makes me wonder if we should reconsider the proposed site boundary to actively include this footpath, or perhaps even make this primary focus with the field as a peripheral or adjacent one?

160

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Other Comments I feel that this site as a gateway could be quite effective – with The BALTIC and the Millennium Bridge drawing in people from the northern end and, this site attracting those from the southern side, both could work together to funnel people to ultimately interact with the park itself. The fact that it has adequate vehicular (main road) and pedestrian access (footpath) makes it even more appropriate to become a gateway.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

161

Site 7 D2.2a (Redheugh Bridge)

Juan’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Provides really nice views of the Newcastle and Gateshead bridges.

2. Although there is a road running alongside it, it doesn’t seem to be used much by cars, mostly pedestrians.

3. Gateshead Riverside Park provides a pleasant backdrop.

Negative Site Attributes 1. The site suffers badly from wind tunnelling effects.

2. Although the road is quiet, if traffic were to use the road, it would do so at speeds of up to 50mph.

3. There is very limited direct sunlight.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Yes, the dedicated pavement encourages me to take a leisurely pace through the site and nearby park. At night I would still feel safe on the pavement but perhaps adopt a quicker pace and not venture into the park.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

Ambivalent. Although there are pleasant views from it, definitely feels like it’s a space that you’re only meant to walk through as opposed to walk towards - this is only a site of interest because we see potential in it.

What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) Anchor, the fact that it could potentially provide a unique vantage point of all the bridges could give the masterplan a distinguishing destination or attraction site. Furthermore, it has great potential to better link Newcastle & Gateshead. Building; while it might not be a traditional built ‘building’, I think it should be a developed design structure.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

Collaborative, if I am arguing that it could better connect two entities, then perhaps its conception should also reflect a sense of duality.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

A stronger interaction with both sides of the riverbank. This could then form part of the ‘corridor’ that I suggested could form of the masterplan with site D1.1c (Green Field).

162

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

D2.2a (Redheugh

Site 7 Bridge)

Olyvia’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Good view across the river, specifically the layering of the bridges.

2. Connects both banks by car and on foot.

3. Lots of graffiti on the side of the walls - presence of local artists taking ownership of their environment.

Negative Site Attributes 1. Extremely windy.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day Yes.

and/or

Night)

Do You Feel Welcomed?

Yes. What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) This site could be an anchor intervention site that presents as a pedestrian footbridge, connecting Newcastle’s quayside with the park. The bridge could stretch onto the Baltic and Millennium Bridge, creating a pedestrian loop around the river.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

This site is a collaborative project between the design-leads, as this unifying connection can work to seamlessly merge the themes together.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

The site will aim to connect Newcastle and Gateshead, as well as the various zones and proposals. This will help establish a path for visitors to take, curating the experience (unlike the current sculpture trail).

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

163

Other Comments While the potential connection across the river’s edge (between Newcastle & Gateshead) that the site could offer is an immediate one; another supplementary connection could be how the site provides a better connection between the National Cycle Route that runs along the footpath to a key site of the Riverside Sculpture Park Trail. The site of the former abutment of the Redheugh Bridge is home to two sculptures, a viewing platform with a unique vantage point and an existing building that could be better utilised as a tourist information or heritage centre. The manner in which this site navigates the steep complex topography to provide a pleasant and comfortable pedestrian journey between Newcastle, across the Tyne over to Gateshead and up towards the level of the Redheugh Bridge is worth exploring further.

164

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Other Comments I think this site serves to be a major connecting element between the opposing themes and design-leads. I imagine there will be a natural osmosis between the themes and this site – the themes will inform the design of this site, whilst the site will ultimately allow the individual themed proposals to respond to it. The design of this site will also reveal certain points of conflict between themes, challenging the design-leads to negotiate and come to a balanced resolution.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

165

Site 8 D2.2b (King Edward VII Bridge)

Juan’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. The design of the railway lines converging atop the K.E. VII Bridge creates pleasant spatial qualities.

2. There is strong architectural merit in the design of the archways of the High Level Bridge.

3. The site is sheltered from the nearby wind tunnelling effect along the riverbank.

Negative Site Attributes 1. The site receives almost no daylight at ground level.

2. The site suffers from fly-tipping and has a negative reputation for illegal & anti-social activities at night.

3. There is a lot of graffiti present on site which divides opinion as to whether or not it should be removed.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Yes, however I wouldn’t feel safe at night given the infamous reputation of the site.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

No, while the arches create a natural threshold, once you go through them there is no place for pause in the vicinity. Moreover, the site is mostly empty - only encourages me to keep going and walk through the space.

What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) Anchor, I feel that the architectural and spatial complexity of the space leans into a design-lead creating a resolved and developed response on the site. Building; in a similar vein, the site has great potential to incorporate the under-structure of the bridge to create a building with unique spatial qualities because the archways provide a strong base for natural thresholds and aesthetic & material direction.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

Individual, given the re-use potential of an existing structure in combination with the strong graffiti presence, I feel this is an opportunity for the site to cater towards the confluence of The Arts and Waste Management.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

I feel the site could represent the past and future of the aforementioned themes, where its use strategy provides the blueprint to establish a successful relationship with fringe artistic mediums and local communities.

166

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

D2.2b (King Edward

Site 8 VII Bridge)

Olyvia’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Existing infrastructure that can be re-used and adapted – red brick arches.

2. Has unused space beneath the bridge that can be transformed.

3. Sheltered space to block off strong winds.

Negative Site Attributes 1. Has limited exposure to natural light.

2. Connects to a dark and dingy tunnel.

3. Has trains running above, which can get quite loud and noisy.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day No.

and/or

Night)

Do You Feel Welcomed?

No. What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) I envision this site being an anchor building proposal, perhaps being one that unifies the arts and waste management. Seeing that this ‘wasted’ space could be transformed into an inhabited ‘beautiful’ building – i.e. turning trash into treasure – it suits the idea of waste management linking into the arts agenda.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

I see this site as an individual project.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

Connections with D2.2a would be appropriate, as it would be the first ‘destination’ upon crossing the river. It also needs to accommodate the presence of train tracks, as well as the noise and vibrations they would cause.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

167

Other Comments I envision that the eventual scheme that occurs in this site should not only fill the void space created by the bridge, but that it projects upwards and beyond the level of the railway lines. In this manner it becomes a reference point along the Gateshead side of the riverbank. Using the sight-line of the bridge as a transition point between materiality and/or architectural form; whereby one approach is applied below it and another complimentary (but altogether different) is applied above it.

168

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Other Comments I personally think this site is extremely interesting and has a lot of potential to be something so much more. There is a huge aspect of adaptive re-use that can be applied to the existing brick arches. The space behind the arches are currently extremely unpleasant and dark, not helped by the overgrown vegetation and fly-tipping left in the crevices of the archways.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

169

Site 9 D3.1b (Pipewellgate Car Park)

Juan’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. The nearby steps and ‘Rolling Moon’ sculpture provide a natural entrance point to site.

2. With improved public transport infrastructure, the necessity for car parking could be removed from the site.

3. There is potential to extend the site into part of the river through a board walk/pontoon type structure.

Negative Site Attributes 1. The site receives almost no daylight at ground level and it is very windy as a result of wind tunnelling.

2. While the adjacent building of the ‘Sea Cadets’ presents an opportunity to expand the footprint to incorporate the building, a new location for the activity would need to be found.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Yes, it isn’t a covered car park where there are hidden or secluded spots and it is sufficiently close to the activity nearby of Pipewellgate to make me feel safe at any time of day.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

Ambivalent, I would feel welcomed if I were parking my car; otherwise I wouldn’t see any particular reason to be here. Alternatively, I could just be passing through the site on a walk along the footpath.

What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) Anchor, its proximity to upcoming planning development (residential development, Brett Wharf) and the influx of new industry (Aspire Technology Solutions) presents the opportunity to provide an activity that responds in a complimentary manner. Building; the car park and potential expansion into the river provides ample footprint to propose something of that scale; furthermore to make use of proposed transport links.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

Individual, by responding and extending the new addition of ‘future’ type technology & industry into the Pipewellgate sector of Gateshead allows this site to lean into the theme of Industry.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

I feel that the connections it should focus on are primarily to link it in a sustainable and urban manner to the activity proposed for site D1.1b (Industrial Estate) via the River Tyne.

170

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

D3.1b (Pipewellgate Car

Site 9 Park)

Olyvia’s Perspective Positive Site Attributes 1. Open and accessible by foot and by car.

2. Site is right against the river for any transport along the river and good views to the other side.

3. Ample exposure to sunlight.

Negative Site Attributes 1. There are changes to the topography that will need to be considered.

2. Will need to possibly consider rerouting car park and pedestrian route running along river.

Do You Feel Safe? (Day and/or Night) Yes, during the day. It may feel quite quiet and secluded at night.

Do You Feel Welcomed?

Yes. What Do You Envision This Site Being? (Anchor / Link) + (Building / Intervention) I envision this site as an anchor site that could house a building for the theme of industry. Its proximity to the river makes it a convenient point for material transport.

Is the Site a Collaborative or Individual Project?

I see this site as an individual project.

What Connections Do you Want to Establish?

The main ones would be with the current proposals lining the river - new proposals could react to them. As this site will also contribute to Gateshead’s skyline, the view from Newcastle should be considered.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

171

Other Comments I see this site as a potential extension of the new focus of reintroduction of industry and technology into this part of Gateshead. I therefore feel that it has the potential to represent the nodal point of the employment & industry provision for the masterplan. As a result, beyond connecting to the council’s existing desires and vision for this area, the site should also provide a direct connection to the proposed Transport Link and public transport infrastructure that is being developed as part of Gateshead South Bank. This would make access for future workers into the area far easier to ensure a greater probability for success, making the overall proposal more feasible.

172

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Other Comments This serves as a great site for the theme of industry, as it provides easy transport, access, and drop-off point. It will also be able to bring industry back to Gateshead’s legacy as it will be placed where the public can openly interact with it.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

173

Comparison Overview & Approach Following the comparison of the reflection forms, we tried to obtain quantifiable data that we could directly analyse to highlight the sites that we agreed and disagreed the most on.

Our approach was to give each location an ‘Alignment Score’ that was dictated by the number of ‘Agreement Lines’ on each of the ‘Written Elements’ category. The results of this are shown on the opposite page.

The higher Alignment Scores mean that we both agree on how the site should be developed and there is not much more to interrogate at this point. This is not to say that there were no points in which one design-lead made a unique observation that the other didn’t. This should be referred back to and taken into consideration when the time comes to develop that Site of Activity in the next phase of the project.

174

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

The lower Alignment Scores mean that we both disagreed on the majority of how the site should be developed. This this therefore means that we should interrogate the particular site more to come to a compromise between design-leads. The site which fall into this category have been highlighted opposite and are presented in the forthcoming spreads.

The sites that sit with an average Alignment Scores suggest that although we agree on an overall approach, there are elements that need to be resolved. However, we feel that they do not require urgent attention at this point in the process and would benefit from being ‘paused’. In the meantime, the sites with a strong alignment and the ones that will be readjusted (previously low Alignment Scores) could inform how we respond to them.

SITE 1 (Baltic Square) • Development should increase provision for adverse weather.

• Development should be at an Intervention scale.

• Development should act as a gateway to masterplan.

SITE 1 - 5/7 SITE 2 - 5/7 SITE 3 - 5/7

SITE 4 - 2/7

Selected for ‘Readjustment’

SITE 2 (Ochre Yards) • Development confirmed as an appropriate location for a transport link.

• Development should establish potential visual desire lines across river.

SITE 5 - 4/7

SITE 6 - 3/7

Selected for ‘Readjustment’

SITE 7 - 6/7

SITE 8 - 4/7

SITE 9 - 3/7

Selected for ‘Readjustment’

SITE 3 (Elsington Field) • Development should directly interact with nearby school with a strong focus on Waste Management.

• Development should work to define and establish specific thresholds and routes through site.

SITE 7 (Redheugh Bridge) • Development should provide a vantage point to the bridges linking Newcastle and Gateshead.

• Development will not be a resolved ‘building’ but it should be larger and more intentional in scale than an intervention.

• Development should link both sides of the river for pedestrians.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

175

SITE 4 DISAGREEMENTS Design-leads disagree as to whether this site should be an Anchor or Link as well as its theme focus.

OT thinks it should be an Anchor with a focus on Industry, while JL thinks it should be a Link with a focus on The Arts.

SITE 6 DISAGREEMENTS

Readjustment Sites Upon identifying the sites with the greatest amount of disagreements, we exchanged views and reasoning regarding our individual perspectives. Through various discussions, we were able to hone in on the key points that provided us with an opportunity to come to an agreement and develop a unified approach to the site.

For clarity these were the sites we readjusted: Site 4 // D1.1a (Gas Works) Site 6 // D1.1c (Green Field) Site 9 // D3.1b (Pipewellgate Car Park)

176

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Design-leads disagree as to whether this site should be an Anchor or Link as well as its theme focus.

OT thinks it should be an Anchor with a focus on The Arts, while JL thinks it should be a Link with a focus on Waste Management.

SITE 9 DISAGREEMENTS Although there were several criteria that designleads disagreed on; these didn’t necessarily relate towards how the site should be developed. They mainly concerned a different perspective on the key attributes of the site.

(CASE FOR) JL VIEW

(CASE FOR) OT VIEW

The proximity to various residential communities could provide the opportunity to bridge the disconnect between them all if it were to be developed by them.

Its vacancy and proximity to existing industry provides opportunity to lean into existing uses and introduce a new type of sustainable industry.

(CASE FOR) JL VIEW

(CASE FOR) OT VIEW

This site interacts with Site 4 as the large scale opportunity to showcase the potential of everyday waste through an artist’s eye.

This site was given the important task of acting as a permanent southern gateway into the masterplan, it requires a developed design approach by a design-lead.

(CASE FOR) JL VIEW

(CASE FOR) OT VIEW

I was mainly concerned with responding to the nearby sculpture to inform acess to the site as well as the potential to relocate the Sea Cadets and expand the site further.

I was drawn to how the site could enhance the skyline of Gateshead.

Also, pedestrian route would need to be adjusted in order to be kept.

RESOLUTION As both design-leads agree that they see the site becoming more public facing at a building scale; we embrace its proximity to both community and industry for it to become a hybrid between Industry and The Arts while becoming a dedicated site for Waste Management. We envision a site where the types waste from Gateshead which is not currently collected by the council can be deposited. This includes, but is not limited to: building materials, furniture, clothing & textiles, coffee capsules & pods and crockery & cutlery. This would expand the range of waste which could be potentially recycled or reused to increase the sustainability credentials of Gateshead council. Furthermore, we see the site having connections with our individual Anchors by either providing base supplies to be reused or a dedicated waste processing centre for the potential future urban industry.

RESOLUTION Both design-leads agree that the site should be at an intervention scale with a focus on The Arts. Following a discussion as to the potential on how the site could interact with the overall masterplan; it was agreed that it should function a Link. OT agreed that its proximity to communities could offer invaluable input into its design, making this gateway specific to its setting. JL was right that the adjacent footpath should be incorporated into its use strategy. Both design-leads thought it would be appropriate to adopt an ‘artist in residence’ approach by having a yearly large scale installation made from the materials deposited in Site 4 to be showcased in the field. Every year it would be dismantled and the majority recycled or reused, while a small part be reconfigured and placed along the footpath as a permanent memory. This would eventually create a catalogue of past creations to signify the start of a ‘culture corridor’ that runs through the masterplan.

RESOLUTION

The personal comparisons revealed that the site is far more complex than we had initially considered. This is because although we agree on how the site should be developed as an individual building scale anchor for industry (with an element of the transportation of materials); we both have a different opinion as to what are the more positive and more negative attributes. We both feel that the best resolution is to simply expand the list of criteria to consider when developing the site to incorporate both our views.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

177

8.3 // Sites of Activity Strategy While the professional approach would work to deliver all sites of activity, as we are operating under an educational narrative; we have introduced different levels of design resolve.

In order to make the project scope feasible, we have agreed that all Anchors would be at a ‘building’ scale. For example, in the case of site D4.1 (Baltic Square), although we had initially thought this should be a separate Anchor at an intervention scale, our ‘Personal Comparisons’ revealed that this could be incorporated to become an extension of site D2.2a (Redheugh Bridge). As a result, each designlead would be responsible for one individual Anchor and take part in the collaborative Anchors.

Following on from our initial Concept Overview (7.1, pg.96) and the proposed Educational Timeline (5.0, pg.82); the Anchors would unlock a particular Link site at ‘intervention’ scale.

178

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

LINKS

INTERVENTION

Developed Design and Resolved Approach

High Level Strategy & Design Intent w/S.H.

BUILDING

Developed Design and Resolved Approach w/S.H.

PHASE 2

Individual

PHASE 3

Collaborative

Year Long Project

BUILDING

Taken On By Council

ANCHORS

PHASE 1

SITES OF ACTIVITY

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

179

Ho Wh

INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE

8.3.1 // Developing a Design Brief The ‘Design Brief’ form was designed to guide the design-leads in the development of their Anchor sites. This will set up a set of criteria that needs to be researched and answered throughout Semester 2. The aim is to provide sufficient socio-economic and architectural background that supports the development of the proposed scheme.

The design-leads should use the ‘Lines of Inquiry’ Venn Diagram to guide their initial research.

These forms will be filled out prior to the ‘Selective Collaboration’ Checkpoint for ‘Developed Design Brief’ that is equivalent of RIBA Stage 2. The complete research will be interspersed in the forthcoming Masterplan Vision Document (Semester 2 hand-in).

180

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

How do you create the need for heavy industry in an urban setting?

What are the site specific opportunities & limitations?

How do you adapt current methods / ideologies to make it viable?

How can you push industry & waste management to near Zero CO2 footprint?

Is traditional industry too ‘output’ focused?

How th

Whe F

in Does it need a social value / public facing?

Does it need a secondary element to ground it to an urban scale / sense/ service?

Site Name:

(Design Brief)

Design-Lead Responsible: CONTEXT / BACKGROUND

ow does Newcastle & Gateshead currently manage waste? hat are the: 1. Opportunities?

2. Limitations?

3. Long-standing issues surrounding waste management?

Site Red-line Boundary:

Building Typology (if changed): Building Footprint (m2) & Expected Scale (storeys): Developed Lines of Inquiry (reasoning behind proposed scheme):

WASTE MANAGEMENT Also in relation to waste...

How does it become useful?

w can you manage he waste output?

ere do you store it?

For how long?

How can you prevent ndustrial waste?

How can we learn from waste?

THE ARTS How to deal with waste through an artistic lens?

Education of waste through art?

Link with existing arts & culture buildings.

What is the role of the arts in placemaking and location branding?

Is it a vehicle to absorb culture through? Bring forward historical development?

How to increase waste manage visibility?

How can you ‘re-funnel’ waste?

Comparing carbon footpring between recyling VS creating with it.

Schematic Programme: How do you engage local communities with the arts?

How to make use of existing artistic setting / facilities & agenda; bringing it to the forefront.

Speculative Materiality (primary & secondary):

Structural Intent:

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

181

Opposite Gateshead Tyne Bank Sites of Activity Classification

182

8.3.2 // Anchor & Link Site Declaration This sub-section consolidates the outcomes of the Personal Comparisons. It begins to elaborate on how we have chosen to develop each of the identified Sites of Activity, discerning between Anchors and Links.

ANCHORS (INDIVIDUAL): D2.2b D3.1b

The forthcoming spreads reveal what Sites of Activity have been assigned to which design-lead; as well as key facts, proposed use and key takeaway points from the Personal Comparisons. Here, we have also begun to consider the key design moves we might make through an annotated evocative sketch. For collaborative sites, each designlead has completed their own image. This will form the basis of an initial conversation that will require us to compare and find a unified direction in terms of how to develop that site. For individual sites, we have also included our initial thoughts as to how the proposal might operate through a building strategy diagram; showing how it relates to the park and serves the masterplan.

LINKS (INTERVENTION): D1.1b D1.1c

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

ANCHORS (COLLABORATIVE): D2.2a D4.1 (D3.1a)*

LINKS (BUILDING): D1.1a D2.1

Opposite // Evocative Sketch Finding opportunities in undervalued spaces.

(OT)

D2.2b (King Edward VII Bridge) Theme Category The Arts (primary) & Waste Management (secondary) Expected Use Creative Re-Use Hub Expected Building Typology Parasite (primary) & Re-Use (secondary) Elements Carried Forward From Personal Comparisons JL - Notes the strong presence of graffiti and the opportunity of its incorporation as a key theme of the proposal.

Site Red-Line Boundary CONFIRMED following Personal Comparisons

JL - Highlights the suggestion of proposal projecting upwards over the train tracks, becoming a point of reference along the riverbank.

OT - Careful consideration of the connections with D.2.2a (Redheugh Bridge) is needed, as the site will be the first ‘destination’ upon crossing the proposed footbridge.

OT - The structural strategies mitigating train vibrations and noise will need to be studied.

JL + OT - Both see the existing re-use potential as the brick arches create natural thresholds that could be built upon and developed further.

184

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Including Opposite Page

Below // Response to Site Specificity Criteria from the research & analysis of Gateshead Riverside Park that the project seeks to respond or react to. These can be either existing issues or possible opportunities.

Historical & Cultural Context

Artistic Zoning The main takeaway from this group was the possibility of using ‘zoning’ as a method to strengthen site identity, noting the council’s many unsuccessful attempts of location branding. The analysis identifying the trends amongst site-specific sculptures, local artists, and choice of materiality, was also particularly useful in understanding the successes and pitfalls of the current sculpture trail.

Environmental Context

River & Kielder Forest This group highlighted that the soil conditions near the park are too soft, thus perhaps not being inappropriate to hold traditional building foundations. This will need to be considered for any proposals along the riverbank. They have also highlighted Kielder Forest as a potential site to source timber for building materials, and the River Tyne as a means for transporting materials and sourcing renewable energy.

Physical & Material Context

Surfaces & Textures The prevalence of graffiti was emphasized, suggesting that they are symbols of community ownership that should be embraced. Differences in lighting conditions during the winter and summer have also been illustrated, being strongly affected by the type of tree, size of tree canopies, and amount of foliage present depending on the season.

Non-Physical Context

Social Stakeholders The local demographic break-down was useful in identifying various local communities present in the area - various schools, families, and the older adult community. This group has particularly pointed out the proximity of Eslington Primary School, and their programmes of outdoor learning (‘eco-warriors’) that often interacts with the park.

They have also pointed out that an aging demographic is prevalent in Gateshead, and that the Gateshead Older People’s Assembly often designates the park and The Staiths Cafe as destinations on their ‘health walks’. Proposals along the park can endeavour to establish connections with the educational and older adults community, drawing in interaction and engagement from local stakeholders.

KEY THEMES

Collective Site Analysis Report

186

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Below // Initial Building Strategy Diagram One person’s trash is another’s treasure.

Local Residents

All profits contributed back to the upkeep & maintenance of the hub.

Second-hand materials can be sold for a reduced price to help struggling communities.

Non-Recyclable Household Items

Local Businesses & Industry

Locally housed auctions.

Exhibitions CREATIVE RE-USE HUB

Business & Commercial Waste

Sold

Creation of Sustainable Art

Locally housed exhibitions or collaboration with BALTIC.

Sculpture Trail Key Interest Users • Artists • Schools & Children • Elderly Homes & Older Adults • Families • Social Prescribers • General public: Anyone with a particular interest in the art & the environment

Serve as temporary additions to site D.4.1.

Recycled All art projects can eventually be sent to a local Waste Management Facility (suggested at D1.1a) at the end of their life cycle.

Any materials deemed not appropriate for creative re-use will be sent to a local Waste Management Facility.

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

187

Opposite // Evocative Sketch Pipewellgate’s industrial reinvention.

(JL)

D3.1b (Pipewellgate Car Park) Theme Category Industry (primary) & Waste Management (secondary) Expected Use Material Exportation + Research & Development Centre Expected Building Typology New Build Elements Carried Forward From Personal Comparisons JL - While the adjacent building of the ‘Sea Cadets’ presents an opportunity to expand the footprint to incorporate the building, a new location for the activity would need to be found. I believe there exists the possibility to relocate them to a site adjacent to the Royal Navy along Hillgate in site D4.1

Site Red-Line Boundary AMENDED following Personal Comparisons

JL - Its proximity to upcoming planning development (residential development, Brett Wharf) and the influx of new industry (Aspire Technology Solutions) presents the opportunity to provide an activity that responds in a complimentary manner.

OT - The site is right against the river for any transport along the river and good views to the other side; however, will need to possibly consider re-routing and pedestrian route running along river. As this site will also contribute to Gateshead’s skyline, the view from Newcastle should be considered.

JL + OT - The site should also provide a direct connection to the proposed Transport Link and public transport infrastructure that is being developed as well as the Tyne Cultural Corridor.

188

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Including Opposite Page

Below // Response to Site Specificity Criteria from the research & analysis of Gateshead Riverside Park that the project seeks to respond or react to. These can be either existing issues or possible opportunities.

Historical & Cultural Context

Site Zoning A rich and vibrant history of industry exists within and around the perimeter of the site - but this has all but been lost at present. Taking into account future planning context and council desires, there exists the opportunity to introduce a reinterpretation of a new approach to industry, framed within an urban necessity, back into the site.

Environmental Context

Sustainable Industry Using Kielder Forest as a potential source for industry raw material, the proximity of the active forest would make it a viable route to transport material for a timber focussed industry to site with reduced transportation cost & environmental impact. Using the Teams and Tyne Rivers as a transport route would utilise the site’s proximity to water and use the historic industry route to export processed material. This would be more environmentally conscious than road transport. This would also alleviate any stresses on road infrastructure around city centre from any upcoming construction developments.

Physical & Material Context

Biodiversity There exists the possibility to introduce a new species of rapid growing vegetation that can be felled to improve the site’s carbon-sink credentials. It is my expectation that this would become the focus of the R&D Centre to explore its potential applications to architecture and construction industry. This would contribute towards filling the ‘biodiversity gap’ created by the current site and its immediate context.

Non-Physical Context

Potential for Added Social Value At present there is a £100pw wage gap across the banks of the Tyne, the project would aim to reconcile this. This is in spite of both having comparable workforces. The aim would be to create job & growth opportunities that aligns themselves to respond to the people who are most economically vulnerable. The introduced built intervention should benefit and engage with the local community. The best way to align the new industry site with key stakeholders is through the means of research and education. As identified in the report, the group consists of students and young people in academic institutions.

This in turn represents just over half of all key stakeholders.

KEY THEMES

Collective Site Analysis Report

190

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

New vegetation species/variant introduced locally for testing.

Below // Initial Building Strategy Diagram Decentralised Sustainable Urban Industry Model Biodiversity Awareness Excess + Offcuts + Usable Waste

Site Zoning + Sustainable Industry (a) Re-invested back to help fund

Industry // R & D Centre

ANCHOR

(+ Material Exportation Facility)

Transported by Water to International Destinations

Transported via Teams & Tyne Rivers

LINK

Sustainable Industry (D)

Industry // Manufacturing

(Material Sorting, Processing & Storage)

PRODUCT SOLD FOR PROFIT

Helps Build Future Projects

Sustainable Industry (C) Excess + Offcuts + Usable Waste

Potential

Supply brought in from local source: Kielder Forest.

Sustainable Industry (B)

for

Waste Management Facility

Added Social Value

Industry // R & D Centre Creates teaching and education opportunities Industry // Manufacturing Creates local ‘accessible’ jobs

Suggested at D1.1a, to be readily available for local creative industries & start-up enterprises around Gateshead Tyne Bank masterplan.

Gateshead Community & Key Stakeholders PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

191

Opposite // Evocative Sketch Drawing (JL) & Concepts (JL + OT)

(JL + OT)

D2.2a (Redheugh Bridge) Theme Category Industry (primary) & The Arts (secondary) Expected Use Pedestrian Footbridge (forms part of Tyne Cultural Corridor) Expected Building Typology New Build (primary) & Parasite (secondary) Elements Carried Forward From Personal Comparisons JL - The site of the former abutment of the Redheugh Bridge is home to two sculptures, a viewing platform with a unique vantage point and an existing building that could be better utilised as a tourist information or heritage centre. The manner in which this site navigates the steep complex topography to provide a pleasant and comfortable pedestrian journey between Newcastle, across the Tyne over to Gateshead and up towards the level of the Redheugh Bridge is worth exploring further.

Site Red-Line Boundary AMENDED following Personal Comparisons

OT - It could become a dedicated site for the expression of graffiti art - presence of local artists taking ownership of their environment.

Similar to London’s South Bank Skate Park.

JL + OT - We both agreed that the design of the bridge should compliment the existing bridges across the Tyne to express the layering created through their various heights. Doing so could give the masterplan a distinguishing destination or attraction site.

192

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Including Opposite Page

Opposite // Evocative Sketch Drawing (OT) & Concepts (JL + OT)

(JL + OT)

D4.1 (Baltic Square) Theme Category The Arts (primary) & Industry (secondary) Expected Use Re-organised & Re-curated Sculpture Trail (forms part of Tyne Cultural Corridor) Expected Building Typology New Build (primary) & Re-Use (secondary) Elements Carried Forward From Personal Comparisons JL - I feel like it needs a direct purpose, something to guide or inform the activity that is meant to happen in this part of the city.

Added provision for adverse weather should be strongly considered here would help direct the type of use.

Site Red-Line Boundary AMENDED following Personal Comparisons

OT - It could become an extension of the artistic agenda of the BALTIC. JL + OT - We think this site acts as a suitable location for the rearrangement of the sculpture park. The current problem with the sculpture trail does not pertain much to the value of the sculptures, but rather the curation of them. By designing a unique manner of displaying the existing sculptures and creating a dedicated sequenced route through the site, it could elevate the existing artworks to the level of their potential. We also agree that extending the site further to pedestrianise Hillgate and incorporating the bank of the Sage could better develop this site.

194

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Including Opposite Page

Opposite Gateshead Tyne Bank Sites of Activity Connections

This spread consolidates the design-leads’ declaration regarding their individual Anchors. The diagram opposite elaborates on how the Anchors begin to establish a network of connecting sites within the masterplan. The aim is that the various locations will work collectively to drive the project towards achieving our thesis: to reconcile and resurface the two overarching site themes of Industrial Heritage and The Arts. It will do so by using Waste Management to bridge the tension created through failed placemaking attempts as a result of location branding. It is important to note that both our Anchors have Waste Management as a peripheral theme and are centrally located within the current accepted boundary of the park as a result of this. This is particularly important because initial site research has demonstrated that the issues stem within the park itself and our proposed Anchors will work to resolve this, kick-starting a series of positive changes throughout wider Gateshead.

Following our Sites of Activity Strategy (8.2), we have now declared 196

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

which particular Link intervention sites they will each respectively unlock. We were able to decide this by referring back to our Personal Comparisons and seeing which sites were most aligned with our individual Anchors.

During the Anchor declaration process, we came to realise that Sites of Activity D3.1b and D4.1 could operate as part of the same collective Anchor site to create a continuous route between them that will encompass both key site themes of Industry and The Arts the ‘Tyne Cultural Corridor’. We have then speculated that following stakeholder engagement for the Link sites, this corridor could be further extended to encompass the whole expanse of the masterplan site.

JL + OT

The proposed Professional & Educational timelines both rely on the design-voices being expressed to increase as the project develops.

This is why we have placed the collaborative sites towards the start and leaving the individual Anchors to follow on from them. This has had the benefit that it will establish the necessary groundwork and infrastructure for the individual Anchors to begin operation seamlessly following their completion. For example, the Transport Link will create and expand the necessary public transport infrastructure to better connect the area to its wider context. The Revised Sculpture Trail will create the necessary land space for the schemes to be built; while the pedestrian footbridge will reinforce and encourage movement across the two riverbanks and through the masterplan.

As stated in the Sites of Activity Strategy, each individual Anchor will work to respond and unlock a Link intervention site.

198

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

D3.1a Transport Link Operation Strategy & High Level Design Intent

JL + OT

D4.1 Revised Sculp Trail

Developed Des & Resolved Appr

Tyn

YEAR LONG PROJECT (PHASE 1 + 2)

TAKEN ON BY COUNCIL (PHASE 3)

‘UNLOCKED’ INTERVENTION LINKS

ANCHORS

JL + OT

JL

OT

pture

D2.2a Pedestrian Footbridge

D3.1b Material Exportation + R&D Centre

D2.2b Creative Re-Use Hub

sign roach

Developed Design & Resolved Approach

Developed Design & Resolved Approach

OT + S.H.

BUILDING LINKS

JL + S.H.

Developed Design & Resolved Approach

ne Cultural Corridor

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

199

Operation Strategy & High Level Design Intent

8.4 // Transport Link The Transport Link is only being developed to the point of a High Level Strategy and Design Intent because it doesn’t directly serve either key site theme. However it still plays a pivotal role in establishing connections within the masterplan.

We have utilised this opportunity as a testing chamber for the proposed collaborative design methods and strategies that underpin our project and masterplan. This will enable us to familiarise ourselves with the process as well as become aware of any potential pitfalls before tackling fully resolved schemes operating under Selective Collaboration.

The forthcoming spreads will detail the Transport Link in terms of its: 1. Operation Strategy 2. High Level Design Intent 3. Spatial Arrangement 4. Atmospheric Vignettes 200

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

National Rail

Gateshead Tyne Bank Shuttle Service Proposed Route & Timings (according to UK national average bus speed of 10mph).

GATESHEAD TYNE BANK

GATESHEAD INTERCHANGE

(13mins approx)

GATESHEAD TYNE BANK

(13mins approx)

Metro

(South Shields - 30mins) (Sunderland - 25mins)

NEWCASTLE CENTRAL STATION

Metro

(Newcastle Airport - 35mins) (Tynemouth - 35mins)

We feel that by carefully developing a well-rounded operation strategy that responds to a series of transport types will demonstrate the validity for our proposal at this site.

1. EXPANDING BUS ROUTE NETWORK The influx of activity back into the area will encourage the reinstatement of the under-utilised existing bus route utilising existing infrastructure.

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

GATESHEAD TYNE BANK

(8mins approx)

(8mins approx)

Operation Strategy The Transport Link will seek to expand upon initial feasibility studies previously completed by Gateshead Council. These have been developed over the past couple of years and investigate the potential for improving the public transport infrastructure. Interestingly, these documents have highlighted Ochre Yards, our proposed location for the Transport Link, as a key development zone. Unfortunately, the appraisals undertaken have identified that initial proposals would not be possible without major intervention and significant expenditure.

202

Opposite Public Transport Infrastructure Strategy

(Leeds - 1hr 35mins) (Edinburgh - 1hr 35mins) (York - 1hr)

2. EXPEDITING ACCESS TO GATESHEAD TYNE BANK The proposed shuttle bus route will directly respond to the incoming localised activity into the area within the employment sector. This will expedite access into and out of Gateshead Tyne Bank by connecting it to the two nearest Metro stops as well as a National Rail Station, making it a viable commuter destination. Due to the small distance covered by the shuttle service (3.52mi) the vehicles used for this should be electric so as to not add to the already high air pollution levels in Gateshead and Newcastle.

Opposite Creating a Destination within a Journey

3. TAPPING INTO EXISTING CYCLE NETWORK + 4. CREATING A DESTINATION FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC The Transport Link will take advantage of the leisure aspect of National Cycle Routes as well as the increasing prevalence of cycling as a mode of transport as a result of the pandemic. Gateshead Council has made it its goal to become Carbon Neutral by 2030, the Transport Link will look further this agenda. Furthermore, the council has recognised that they need to improve cycling and walking links between Gateshead and Newcastle and the Quays. The proposal will provide a supplementary offer beyond connecting transport modes to create a enjoyable destination and resting spot that draws a variety of people from the surrounding areas.

We have created a Vignette Journey that ties all these elements together: 1. Person travels along National Cycle Route 14 towards Transport Link on a sunny Saturday afternoon.

204

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

2. Person arrives at Transport Link and securely stores their bike ahead of continuing their journey into town.

3. The person decides to have a break and enjoys a coffee at the Transport Link as they saved a lot of time by avoiding the busy weekend traffic.

4. Person waits for the shuttle service to take them into the town centre to meet friends.

5. Person arrives at town centre and enjoys the most of the pleasant weather with peace of mind that their bike is securely stored and can get back to it with ease.

6. Person uses the free shuttle service to head back and collect their bike in the evening.

7. They make their journey back home having had a lovely and sustainable journey into Gateshead & Newcastle.

High Level Design Intent This spread will outline the overall approach that this site will adopt in terms of design and layout principles to demonstrate a proof-ofconcept to this element of the masterplan.

1. BIKE STORAGE (Amsterdam Bike Parks) At the moment, all Newcastle & Gateshead cycle pods and cycle lockers are directly linked to the Nexus Metro system. This means that there is only sporadic locations around the urban centres that can only cater to a small amount of bikes. The Transport Link will aim to provide a substantial increase in the number of secure, sheltered bike storage akin to the approach adopted in the city of Amsterdam, albeit at a smaller scale.

2. NEW SHUTTLE BUS STOP (Glatzegg Bus Stop) This will provide a intentional and permanent terminus for the shuttle service that also links into the bus network. It will act as more than 206

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

a bus stop and act as a pleasant space for congregation through its considered visual design.

3. SOCIAL & LEISURE OFFER (Backyard Bike Shop) We are hoping to introduce a franchise location to the this successful local business following their recent move to By The River Brew Co on Hillgate. We envision how they could adopt a ‘concept store’ typology as a coffee shop serving local commuters and passers-by; as well as offering cycling & bike related advice; local tourist guidance; supplies & merchandise. A light canopy will provide added cover.

4. DESTINATION OFFER (Viewing Platform) The proposed viewing platform was introduced to compensate for the obscured views of the Tyne Bridges and Newcastle caused by the high wall at the square. This will hopefully expose a vantage point reserved for select few residents to draw people to this site as they make their journeys.

1. Amesterdam Bike Parks

2. Glatzegg Bus Stop (Wang Shu & Lu Wenyu, Amateur Architecture Studio)

3. Backyard Bike Shop

4. Viewing Platform // Landgangen (Cobe) PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

207

Spatial Arrangement Below // Diagrammatic Section (Not to Scale) Opposite // Schematic Plan (1:500, North is at Top of page)

VIEWING PLATFORM

COFFEE/COMMUNITY/ART

CYCLE

Pipewellgate

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

208

BUS STOP

P E O P L E

P E O P L E

Shuttle Service & Bus Stop Bike Lockers Access Ramp to Further Bike Lockers Cycle Priority Path Water Feature to Announce Transport Link Transport Link Courtyard Canopy

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

B I K E S

B I K E S

Ochre Yards

STORAGE

Rabbit Banks

7. Information Desk & Payment Machines 8. Backyard Bike Shop Concept Store (Retail, Advice & Coffee) 9. Community Art Wall and Public Seating 10.Viewing Platform (Reveals Views of Newcastle) 11. Additional Bike Lockers

N E TY ER RI V

nt)

me

10

ng mi

lD

tia

n ide

s Re

p elo ev

o

pc (U

LG AT E

11

W

EL

9

PI

PE

1 8 2

KS

T BI

7

AD RO

6

N BA

B

RA

5

3

DS

OC

R YA RE

H

4

PART 2 // 8.0 Anchors in Gateshead Tyne Bank

209

Atmospheric Vignettes A series of interconnected spaces working together to create a better journey between the two towns through Gateshead Tyne Bank.

COMM COF SHUTTLE BUS STOP

MUNITY FFEE REVEALED PANORAMA

PART THREE (3)

GATESHEAD TYNE BANK

Speculative Elements

9.0 / Links in Gateshead Tyne Bank 10.0 / Wider Application of New Approach: National & International

9.0

Links in Gateshead Tyne Bank GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

JL + OT

JL + OT

9.1 // Interventions & Buildings Interventions As per the Sites of Activity Strategy (8.3), the individual Anchors ‘unlock’ a respective Link site each at intervention scale. Because the two are interrelated we are in a position to speculate their function to a greater level of detail. However, these decisions are being made on a conditional basis to be presented to the stakeholders at the appropriate time. Following their engagement & consultation, we will either confirm or modify our initial thoughts. From that point onwards, the Link sites will be developed further towards a high level strategy & design intent as part of the scope of our year long project.

Buildings After the interventions have been completed, work on the buildings can start. The stakeholders will use the experience they gained at a smaller scale (interventions) and apply it to a larger scheme (buildings). However, because buildings are development is driven directly by the stakeholders, we can only suggest its use at this stage.

214

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

D3.1a Transport Link Operation Strategy & High Level Design Intent

D4.1 Revised Scu Trail

Developed Des & Resolved Appr

Tyn

pture

sign roach

YEAR LONG PROJECT (PHASE 1 + 2)

TAKEN ON BY COUNCIL (PHASE 3)

‘UNLOCKED’ INTERVENTION LINKS

ANCHORS

JL + OT

D .2a 2 Pedestrian Footbridge Developed Design & Resolved Approach

JL

OT

D .1b 3 Material Exportation + R&D Centre

D .2b 2 Creative Re-Use Hub

Developed Design & Resolved Approach

Developed Design & Resolved Approach

OT + S.H.

D1.1c Artistic Gateway Operation Strategy & High Level Design Intent

JL + S.H.

D1.1b Material Sorting, Processing & Storage Facility Operation Strategy & H. L. Design Intent

BUILDING LINKS

S.H. + Council

D1.1a Social Condenser & Waste Management Facility D2.1 Community Education Suggested Use

ne Cultural Corridor

PART 3 // 9.0 Links in Gateshead Tyne Bank

215

(Stakeholders + JL)

D1.1a (Industrial Estate) Theme Category Industry Expected Use Material Sorting, Processing and Storage Facility (future sustainable urban industry) Expected Building Typology Re-Use

216

(Stakeholders + OT)

D1.1c (Green Field) Theme Category The Arts Expected Use Artistic Gateway (forms part of Tyne Cultural Corridor) Expected Building Typology New Build (primary) & Re-Use (secondary)

Elements Carried Forward From Personal Comparisons JL - The current type of industry might need to be adapted to fit into the ethos of the project. The forthcoming development on this site will be informed on a better understanding of the type of industry present there at the moment; as well as understanding socio-economic landscape of the industrial sector framed within an urban necessity. I see it being probably be one of the final elements of the masterplan that responds to the other sites. This is because it would require a slow phased transition to a new type of sustainable industry for an urban setting.

Elements Carried Forward From Personal Comparisons JL - I envision having a focus on Waste Management that engages and interacts with the local community could create a symbiotic relationship between the two.

OT - The presence of River Team running through it, which could be used for transport of materials or resources.

JL + OT - The adjacent footpath should be incorporated into its use strategy. Both design-leads thought it would be appropriate to adopt an ‘artist in residence’ approach by having a yearly large scale installation made from the materials deposited in Site 4 to be showcased in the field. Every year it would be dismantled and the majority recycled or reused, while a small part be reconfigured and placed along the footpath as a permanent memory. This would eventually create a catalogue of past creations to signify the start of a ‘culture corridor’ that runs through the masterplan.

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

OT - Intervention scale adopting a light-touch with a series of demountable or adaptable elements. I can imagine temporary structures being built for different community events, e.g. Sunday markets, local arts exhibitions, outdoor performances, festival spaces etc.

D1.1a Key Image

D1.1c Key Image

D1.1a Speculative Site Red-Line Boundary

D1.1c Speculative Site Red-Line Boundary PART 3 // 9.0 Links in Gateshead Tyne Bank

217

9.2 // Stakeholder Engagement Framework Overview Under the proposed Professional Timeline (see Pg.80) the Link buildings would be developed in tandem with the design-leads. However, for the adopted Educational Timeline (see Pg.82) this would fall under the responsibility of Gateshead Council, potentially developed with new design-leads. As a result, this section will provide the council with guidance on how to do this and what outcomes to aim for.

Active Vs Passive Methods While most councils will provide consultation opportunities with stakeholders during the development of schemes, we see this as a passive method. This is because it suggests that the council is only looking to field concerns and appease them rather than directly incorporate comments and have the design of the scheme amended to directly respond to them. Contrastingly, by directly engaging stakeholders throughout the development of the masterplan in specific sites, it provides a more active method that will combat this.

218

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

“Participation of architectural laypeople in shaping their built environment is still limited to citizen participation in urban regeneration and development processes, such as public hearings.”

“Participation in the architectural design of their immediate environment often remains ignored. Architects barely participate in these debates, frequently retreating with their design expertise and limiting themselves to the moderation or organization of architectural processes and related decisions.”

PART 3 // 9.0 Links in Gateshead Tyne Bank

219

EN

STAK

Selective Collaboration between design-leads to inform

D

STAK Selective Collaboration between design-leads to inform

Engagement Programme In order to properly engage the stakeholders, there needs to be a clearly structured and defined programme to the types of engagement happening at various points in a scheme’s development. Should the council properly circulate this programme, it will allow a greater reach of stakeholder demographics preventing bias towards one group through the inadvertent omission of others. It will encourage stakeholders to make the time and effort to take part.

Engagement Deliverables Following the proposed engagement strategies (shown opposite) as well as traditional consultation methods, the council should aim to collate the information into a legible format. This should encompass the Zeitgeist of the stakeholder’s views and design ideas regarding that particular site. Even if it differs from the (newly-appointed) design-lead’s proposals, they should work to directly incorporate the findings.

220

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

M

STAK Selective Collaboration between design-leads to inform

D

STAK

Selective Collaboration between design-leads to inform

F

STAK

Link Site Engagement Programme

DEVELOPING OF NGAGEMENT CALENDAR

Responsibility of Council

KEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Engagement Calendar Sign-Off with Stakeholders

DEVELOPED DESIGN BRIEF

KEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

MASSING DEVELOPMENT

Social Media Takeover (1) Door-to-Door Awareness (letters)

Up to RIBA Stage 2

Weekend Pop-Up Events (2)

Dedicated Calendar Event

Up to RIBA Stage 3

KEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Dedicated Calendar Event

DEVELOPED DRAWINGS

RIBA Stage 3 / 4

KEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Dedicated Calendar Event

FINAL REPRESENTATION

Up to RIBA Stage 4

KEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Circulated Engagement Calendar to involve everyone and anyone (wider community).

1

2

Ash Sakula // Peckham Co-Design

Forum groups committee members Resident’s associations

Dedicated Calendar Event

Drop-in Q&A Sessions

Denotes key interest stakeholders

Local & independent business owners

Design Incubators & Workshops (engaged through)

Live Stream of Events Closed Group Digital Pin-Up Boards (Miro)

PART 3 // 9.0 Links in Gateshead Tyne Bank

221

10.0

Wider Application of New Approach: National & International

GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

Upon developing the new approach towards resolving the issues present in the Gateshead Riverside Park, forcibly placing an artistic trail through a historic industrial area, we considered whether our approach could be applied on a national scale. We began to look to other locations across the U.K which display the park’s characteristic tensions, echoed by Newcastle & Gateshead themselves: emerging cultural centres evolving from a post-industrial past, albeit with varied success.

Considering that each city and town will have their own set of site conditions unique to their respective place, the explored themes of reconciling Industrial Heritage and The Arts through Waste Management may not be entirely applicable. However, the framework and method devised to negotiate between dualities and opposing themes can be adapted and implemented to other places. This includes the approach towards placemaking - the idea of expressing a place’s genius loci through the method of zoning 222

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

rather than branding a location with a blanket identity. The method of zoning seeks to embrace all the complexities that make up a place, not only creating a strongly defined identity but also communicating a rich sense of place. We have highlighted a series of major U.K. cities that this approach could be applied to, as their post-industrial heritage could present different iterations of the overarching problem present on the researched site. While it may not be framed within the same themes that have been explored in this document; the act of finding a commonality between two seemingly opposing themes and extrapolating this to act as a unifying agent to reconcile and strengthen site identity. Thus, resurfacing the genius loci and succeeding in placemaking the site.

The idea of incorporating stakeholder engagement to establish site identity can also be taken forward, as site identity will ultimately stem from positive shared collective memory and feeling amongst local communities. Since this will only occur if communities are willing to

Opposite // Echoed Sentiments Map of major post-industrial cities across the U.K. showing the potential range and reach of our proposed new approach towards masterplanning and collaborative design.

appropriate and interact with the place, it highlights the importance of listening to their needs and wants. Our methods of active stakeholder engagement can be taken into consideration as innovative ways of consultation. In particular reference to Anchor and Link Sites where the former’s development is driven directly by the stakeholders of a site.

If our approach towards post-industrial places could be applied nationally, we speculate the possibilities of it being applied on an international scale. Whilst acknowledging that each country’s socio-cultural context would inherently play a role in presenting a series of site-specific conditions and problems. Although this would be an entirely different context to post-industrial U.K., our method of ‘Selective Collaboration’ can still be utilized as a starting point. ‘Selective Collaboration’ in this year-long project has been specifically used to negotiate between dualities and opposing site themes. It can, however, be applied in the broader sense as an approach to create proposals that respond and interact with each other. This will not only combat ‘The Architect as the Individual Genius’ problematic archetype, but will also prevent the constant production of building proposals that sit in isolation from each other. By doing so, it will encourage future projects to embody a considered response to the existing built environment, and to work collaboratively to establish a unique sense of place and identity.

PART 3 // 10.0 Wider Application of New Approach: National & International

223

SUMMARY & REFELCTIVE CONCLUSIONS GC1 / GC2 / GC3 / GC4 / GC5 / GC6 / GC7 / GC8 / GC9 / GC10 / GC11

To provide Gateshead Council with site. This approach will aim to guid works to reconcile the two overarch whose continued placemaking attem resulte

DRIVER (WHY?)

To critique the council’s top-down a of placemaking through location br towards the development of the s this has created significant amou psychological and physical wa The Briefing Document for Gateshead Tyne Bank can be interpreted as a detailed thesis proposal. We would like to draw particular attention to the following sections: Foreword Critical Introduction 2.0 / Proposed New Approach 3.0 / Architectural Theorem Underpinning New Approach (All) 5.0 / Relating New Approach to An Educational Narrative 6.1 / Overview (Design Leads ‘Selective Collaboration’ Framework) 7.1 / Concept Overview (Gateshead Tyne Bank Masterplan) 10.0 / Wider Application of New Approach: National & International The forthcoming individual Critical Reflections will provide concluding thoughts and points to the development of the process and eventual proposals situated within the masterplan.

224

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

VICIOUS CYCLE

Zoning The new approach embraces all the layers o placemaking attempts while simultaneously e the ingrained complexity of the site through approach.

THESIS (WHAT?)

h a new design approach towards the future evolution of the de the development of a new masterplanning approach that hing identities of Industry and The Arts embodied by the site; mpts only worked to oppose these two themes. This ultimately ed in ‘place- breaking’ the site.

MANIFESTO (HOW?)

approach randing site; as unts of aste.

We aim to reconcile the tension of Industry and The Arts, through their common theme of waste management. Waste is a by-product of both processes as well as the relics of past placemaking efforts that manifest itself in psychological waste and physical waste.

From the site research these three key themes / identities emerged which led to the development of the thesis.

INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

THE ARTS

ZONING

of previous expressing a Zoning

SELECTIVE COLLABORATION

Selective Collaboration Between Industry Heritage & The Arts to manage and mitigate the impact of all waste (psychological & physical) on site. This will lead to the reconciliation of both.

Summary & Reflective Conclusions (Thesis Outline)

225

Design Lead

for Industry

Juan’s Reflective Conclusion This is my first time working collaboratively in academia on a design project, with the exception of group projects where the reduced individual responsibility and decision autonomy lead to an altogether more diluted design-voice and different learning outcomes which are more concerned with interpersonal skill development. I was initially ignorant to think that projects with a collaborative format between two students were rare. Given that my only frame of reference was Newcastle University, I was surprised to learn that they were far more common at institutions such as University of Liverpool and University of Sheffield.

Reflecting back on my experience of working collaboratively has been overwhelmingly positive thus far. We are, inadvertently, complimentary design-leads to one another. This is best highlighted by the fact that when looking back through our previous year’s work we noticed that our schemes had a very similar sectional form, albeit with completely different building functions and our own visual representation style. Up until this year we had never worked together and while we didn’t enter this collaborative design project blindly, we had already established a successful friendship.

However, this doesn’t necessarily translate to a successful working partnership. I think a crucial point is born out of this. While it is important to have dual design-leads in large-scale schemes, they must be similar enough (in regards to their architectural approach and beliefs) that they are pushing the project in the same overall direction. They must also simultaneously be different enough that each provides a different perspective and ideas that may not otherwise have come about from a singular design voice. Had the opposite dynamic have happened where the design-leads 226

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

are incompatible, I feel like the resultant document and ensuing proposals would come across disjointed and fractured. They would read as two isolated entities in competition for dominance as opposed to a cohesive collection with indiscernible singular creator origins, unless explicitly expressed.

I am not suggesting that all modern architectural practices operate under an authoritarian design regime; after all my professional experience demonstrated that even as a Part I my opinions were voiced, heard and on occasion incorporated. I am however suggesting that if we were to scale up this academic project to the level of a professional scenario, our dual-design leads would become dual architectural practices with equal hierarchical importance. This model is far less prevalent in industry. An example of this is Birmingham Smithfield regeneration masterplan, a project I briefly worked on. Here, we were part of a design team overseen

by Lendlease, a multinational property development company

Design Lead

for

The Arts

Olyvia’s Reflective Conclusion with certain ideas and when to let go of others, preventing topdown attitudes to design that we are trying to eradicate. I feel that architectural education should place more of an emphasis on the value of collective work, rather than encouraging individual merit, as this inherently promotes the historical view of the sole practitioner.

This semester has undoubtedly been a fruitful one, as the dual focus on design output and process has pushed me to think more critically than I previously have done. Seeing as we mainly focused our energy on devising an appropriate methodology and approach for Gateshead Riverside Park, it has made me become more aware of the traditional architectural methods we are so commonly used to designing with. Prior to this project, I was oblivious to the dangers of falling into the archetypal trap of ‘The Architect as the Individual Genius’ and was unaware of how easy it is to superimpose our views of the world through our designs for various communities.

As most projects throughout my academic journey have been completed individually, working collaboratively with a trusted colleague was a refreshing experience. It was beneficial to have a different opinion that would often introduce new perspectives and push initial concepts even further. The continuous and consistent flow of dialogue and communication has helped to rationalize my thought process. It allowed me to realize when to push forward

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, I was a direct entrant from my Part 1 degree to the MArch course. Whilst I was originally concerned that my lack of experience would put me at a disadvantage, we were able to use this to contrast with Juan’s experience of having had 3 years prior to the MArch. This prompted us to study the divide between professional practice and architectural education, giving rise to our interest towards participatory design and stakeholder engagement. My wealth of academic experience has helped us consider the barriers of conducting such a project in academic time scales, which ultimately allowed for a more wellrounded and feasible approach. This has encouraged us to devise innovative engagement methods that would still be representative of stakeholders despite not having the same level of reach as professional practice. This enabled me to realize that there should be more of a natural osmosis between education and practice, highlighting that the good aspects of one process could work to influence the other.

Having planned to design Anchor sites in semester 2 with a greater degree of autonomy, I still see the process of working collaboratively, albeit selectively at specific checkpoints, a key component that I would like to focus on. Whilst I am enthusiastic to Summary & Reflective Conclusions (Thesis Outline)

227

High Friars Arcade // Juan Lopez Stage 5, 2020-2021

228

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Sustainability Through Sustenance // Olyvia Tam Stage 5, 2020-2021

Summary & Reflective Conclusions (Thesis Outline)

229

responsible for many projects including the various Westfield shopping centres. The masterplan vision had multiple sites, each being led by a firm whose niche was in that particular building use.

Although Lendlease won the overall bid, my firm had to then re-bid to be part of the working masterplan project. This is in spite of the fact that our site would be part of the initial phase of the project and therefore instrumental in ensuring the scheme’s success. It could be suggested to a large extent, that Lendlease won the bid as a direct result of the work done by my firm up to that point. In the end, an agreement was established that my firm would remain on the project but as an advisory/consultancy entity for that site. This meant that even though one could argue that this building would be designed in conjunction between two practices, once design voice would ultimately be expressed more strongly than the other. I believe that potentially this approach could produce issues not too dissimilar to the ones that we have illustrated upon in this document.

Ultimately, I believe the work that we have done for this briefing document sets us up for an exciting and fruitful second semester. It will hopefully elaborate on and test the educational narrative for its potential transferable benefits towards professional practice. I believe that we can achieve this by closely following the proposed design methods, engagement strategies and collaborative approach; as well as remaining true to the initial aims we set out for Gateshead Riverside Park by enacting the masterplan.

For me, personally, this is what we should be our primary focus.

A secondary focus is perhaps founded on a more independent response to the project. This is to develop our own personal lines of inquiry for our individual Anchor sites. These should be founded on well reasoned and researched arguments for our proposal that speak of its necessity within our masterplan project. Our proposals should aim to provide an innovative approach or unique response to an existing issue and framing that within site specificity.

I feel optimistic about the forthcoming semester because the 230

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

framework and parameters are founded in mutual respect for fellow designers (irrespective of background or qualifications) as well as a humility design ethos. The latter being the most important takeaway.

Humility is crucial and an often underrated characteristic in design, especially within academia as far as my own personal experiences go. An often pushed narrative is that of the bolder, grander, more daring project which has been resolved with increasing millimetric precision. With every later stage of architectural education, the project briefs seem to present a trend that echoes this. This leaves little scope for those with inbuilt conditionals; which place equal emphasis on the designing a process that allows a better design to be designed or that work to connect a series of more modestly scaled incisions into the urban fabric. All of these criteria can find humility as a common thread. It is also important to note that humility and aspiration are not mutually exclusive. Although humility is something which can evoke sentiments of unassertiveness or lack of pride - neither a desirable quality for a strong architectural response; we will not ‘rest’ on humble. While our project might have a strong emphasis on a humble design approach; its aims are aspirational as they work to resolve deeply ingrained longstanding issues across Gateshead and its many communities.

Another reason why I feel optimistic about the upcoming stage of the masterplan is because our project recognises the importance of a continuous contrasting design voice holding them accountable for design moves. I interpret this to be different than the role of a design tutor. While they are constant design voice offering opinions and ideas; they are not continuous or deeply embedded within the development of a project. Furthermore, it’s not my belief that a ‘good’ design tutor would ever force a student to change elements of their scheme in the same way the role of the design-lead here does, nor should they take a position that is constantly holding the student accountable week to week. As we have discussed, the field of architecture as a whole often struggles with managing the ego of the self appointed ‘individual genius’ which more often than not

see where semester 2 takes us, a potential worry is the feasibility of stakeholder engagement. Even though I am certain that we will endeavour to engage with stakeholders as much as possible, as we have strategised the attainable methods for appropriate checkpoints within our year-long project, the Covid-19 pandemic and our status as students may still put us in a restricted position.

Thus, the idea of placing greater emphasis on the collaboration between the design-leads in relation to comparing design processes between practice and education has helped to reassure the practical execution of our project. As there is such a key component of collaboration in our proposed design process, a key factor that we should aim to achieve next semester are for the physical manifestations of this process – our individual Anchors – to reflect this. Whether that is through how the building functions feed into each other, through physical connections, i.e., re-organization of pedestrian routes to properly connect the opposing themes (Industry & The Arts) of the site, or how Waste Management is used to negotiate between the dualities. The rationalizing of design processes should be viewed just as significant as the commonly perceived ‘be-all and end-all’ design product, as the very nature of our built environment is that it is always in a state of flux.

Summary & Reflective Conclusions (Thesis Outline)

231

as a result has a god-complex. Striving for humility within design is to apply self awareness and recognise that one design voice, especially while still in academia, cannot possibly have all the appropriate responses to a design problem; and consequentially cannot produce the absolute best resolved scheme, let alone masterplan. Having a design partner who is actively designing for a seemingly contrasting theme enables them to point out potential flaws or simply provide a furthering of an idea that elevates a project from good to great.

Therein however lies a potential pitfall, in order to successfully enact our approach a conversation between design-leads, especially in our case we are first and foremost friends, cannot be just that: a ‘chat’. We must take great care to not fall into a habit of casually discussing ideas or issues. Instead, we need to see-through our rigorous documentation strategy that critiques and analyses our comments to highlight what and how we have learnt as a direct result of having a contrasting design voice. Moreover, it is not sufficient to just document this, we must actively work to incorporate all appropriate ‘resolves’ that arise from the coalescing of both design-leads following the moments of ‘Selective Collaboration’.

To finalise, the introduction of dual design-leads adds the right amount of extra complexity which as the document states, if successfully interwoven, creates extraordinary and inevitable designs. Simply put, it enables us as students to move one step closer towards realising the holy grail within architecture, to express the genius loci.

232

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Summary & Reflective Conclusions (Thesis Outline)

233

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ash Sakula Architects. (n.d.). Placemaking. Avaliable at: https://www.ashsak. com/categories/place-making (Accessed 30 December 2021) Ash Sakula Architects. (n.d.). Carnival Arts Centre. Avaliable at: https://www. ashsak.com/projects/carnival-arts-centre (Accessed 30 December 2021) Ash Sakula Architects. (n.d.). Peckham Codesign. Avaliable at: https://www. ashsak.com/projects/peckham-codesign (Accessed 30 December 2021) Bannon, L.J., and Pelle, E. (2012) ‘Design’ , in Simonsen, J., and Robertson, T. (ed).

Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.37-63.

Courage, C. et al. (2020) The Routledge Handbook of Placemaking. 1st edn.

London: Routledge. Avaliable at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429270482.

234

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Cobe (n.d.). Landgangen. Avaliable at: https://cobe.dk/place/landgangen (Accessed 15 January 2022) Dwell. (2021). Designing for for Wellbeing in Environments for Later Life (DWELL).

Avaliable at: https://sites.google.com/sheffield.ac.uk/dwell/ (Accessed 23 December 2021) De Graaf, R. (2014) ‘The vast majority of the built environment is of an unspeakable ugliness’, Dezeen, 10 December, avaliable at: <https://www.dezeen. com/2014/12/10/reinier-de-graaf-opinion-oma-the-built-environment-unspeakableugliness/> (Accessed 30 December 2021) GT3 Architects (n.d.). Hexham Bus Station. Avaliable at: https://www.gt3architects. com/project/hexham-bus-station/ (Accessed 15 January 2022) Gregory, J. (2003). ‘Scandinavian Approaches to Participatory Design’, International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), pp.62-47.

Greenwich Peinsula. (n.d.). Art on The Tide. Avaliable at: https://www. greenwichpeninsula.co.uk/whats-on/the-peninsulist/art-on-the-tide/ (Accessed 22 December 2021) Global Studio. (n.d.). Vancouver 2006. Avaliable at: http://theglobalstudio.com/ vancouver-2006/ (Accessed 30 December 2021) Hanington, B., and Martin, B. (2019). Universal Methods of Design Expanded and Revised 125 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Beverly: Rockport Publishers Hofmann, S. (2014) Architecture Is Participation: Die Baupiloten - Methods and Projects. Berlin: Jovis Verlag GmbH Matadero Madrid. (n.d.). Nave 0. Avaliable at: https://www.mataderomadrid. org/en/architecture#enlace-ancla-2 (Accessed 30 December 2021)

Russel, J. (2015). ‘Enough of Bogus “Placemaking”’, James S. Russel: Architecture Critic, Journalist and Consultant, 8 April, avaliable at: http://jamessrussell.net/ enough-of-bogus-placemaking/ ( Accessed 14 December 2021) South Bank London Official Visitor Guide. (n.d.). Leake Street Arches. Avaliable at: https://southbanklondon.com/attractions/leake-street-arches (Accessed 22 December 2021) South Bank London Official Visitor Guide. (n.d.). House of Vans London. Avaliable at: https://southbanklondon.com/attractions/house-vans (Accessed 22 December 2021) Sanoff, H. (2000) Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bibliography

235

APPENDIX A Design Diary

Collective & Individual

Process Recording & Design Evolution A key part of our thesis is to develop a project that relies heavily on the various methods and media that we use as a collective and individual to record our process and design evolutions.

BRIEF DEVELOPMENT DIAGRAMS // WEEK 2 (WC 22 / 11 / 21)

TUTORIAL // WEEK 2 (26 / 11 / 21)

GRAHAM'S COMMENTS

Critical Reflections & Co-Critiquing

Project is at a crossroads: Either fully theoretical or conventional masterplan

This has aided us by establishing a more structured dialogue between us to better justify the choices and reasons that shaped the project direction.

This appendix shows some of the highlights across the different platforms we have used.

236

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

He said it feels that the thesis leaning towards a focus on a design process (doesn't have to be a drawn output)

We should begin to specify our 'own rules for the game'.

Have a clearer, more rigorous understanding of how we would collaborate with each other. We can't just have 'chats'. We need to be able to document and assess how / why / what we are learning from each other. What added value it is having to the project.

Extend that further into the project by specifying how we could engage the wider stakeholders and how that could influence the process and design approach of the site.

Suggested to look at Co-Design & CoProduction to ground it in theorem.

A commentary on the top-down approach - superimposing physical manifestations on site

He pointed out that if we chose to go down the 'masterplan' route, we risk falling into the same trap of superimposing (zoning diagram)

Suggested it could take the form of a 'Briefing Document' that is provided to Gateshead Council

Blueprint for developing site

Tentative outputs - using the site as a 'testing ground' suggesting what interventions could look like Thesis should be a focus on a design process (doesn't have to be a drawn output)

Consultation & collaboration - CoProduction & Co-Design

How to properly engage local community

Below // Miro Digital Pin Up Board Collective Process Recording

Enough of Bogus “Placemaking” (James S. Russell)

The Campbell Fitness Center at Columbia University’s sports complex at the northern tip of Manhattan looks strange to a lot of people. But the more you know the context–an elevated train rattles past it; industrial uses collide with with residential and institutional ones—the more you appreciate why its unconventional form is so right for its place. The building, on paper, could have been a windowless box, walling off Columbia’s athletic complex from the residential blocks as earlier buildings (and the regrettable new fence) do. Instead it opens views to athletic fields and the hills of the South Bronx beyond, and plays off the grey-metal counterweight of the Broadway Bridge (which is just out of this photo). Its sculpted volume and zigzagging stairs recognise the industrial pragmatism of the surroundings while making a boring, emptied street intersection come to jazzy life.

This building makes its place unique by recognising and resonating with a messy context, rather than trying hopelessly to tidy it. Yet it does not follow the rigid rules of “Placemaking,” a rhetorical gimmick spreading across the urban-development wonkosphere like kudzu. Placemaking sounds good and everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon.

101 THINGS I LEARNED IN ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL - MATTHEW FREDERICK

Unfortunately, Placemaking, as promulgated by its chief advocate, the nonprofit Projects for Public Spaces, is largely bogus, even though PPS rather presumptuously claims it “has the potential to be one of the most transformative ideas of this century.” After you hack through thickets of slogans and vagaries, Placemaking seems to comprise a community-driven process for designing public spaces (streets, sidewalks, plazas, squares, campuses, parks, and so on) that are mixed use, host a variety of activities for diverse audiences, and are well-connected to the larger city or town. All this has been mom & pop, apple-pie stuff in urban planning circles for decades, derived from the valuable 1960s work of the urbanist and author Jane Jacobs and the urban planner William H. “Holly” Whyte. The same ideas energised the 1990s New Urbanism that gave us Neo-historical neighbourhoods, a few of them actually good.

9 - Sense of Place.

Genius Loci literally means genius of place. It is used to describe places that are deeply memorable for their architectural and experiential qualities.

17 - The more specific a design idea Is, the greater its appeal is likely to be.

Being nonspecific in an effort to appeal to everyone usually results in reaching no one. But drawing upon a specific observation, poignant statement, ironic point, witty reflection, intellectual connection, political argument or idiosyncratic belief in a creative work can help you create environments others will identify with in their own way - ie expressing the genius loci.

Campbell Fitness Center, Columbia University; Steven Holl Architects

A public gathering place in South Lake Union, Seattle

Gasworks Park, Seattle; Richard Haag, landscape architect

Rose Kennedy Greenway, Boston, facing ventilating building

Salk Center, looking to Pacific Ocean, La Jolla; Louis Kahn, architect

Old Fourth Ward Park with Atlanta Beltline beyond

Sadly, Placemaking could only gain currency because our building and development processes create so little that is inviting and memorable. America’s default is to assemble standardised real-estate products along roads engineered for auto throughput, and call it a day. Placelessness is so ubiquitous and such second nature that it is actually hard to think about what it takes to make a building or streetscape that’s appealing, that feels as if it belongs.

29 - Being process-orientated, not product-driven, is the most important ad difficult skill for a designer to develop.

Being process orientated means: 1. Seeking to understand a design problem before chasing after the solutions; 2. Not force-fitting solutions to old problems onto new problems; 3. Removing oneself from prideful investment in the project and being slow to fall in love with the ideas; 4. Making design investigations and decisions holistically (that address several aspects of a design problem at once) rather than sequentially (that finalise one aspect of a solution before investigating the next) 5. Making design decisions conditionally — that is, with the awareness that they may or may not work out as you continue toward a final solution.; 6. Knowing when to change and when to stick to previous decisions; 7. Accepting as normal the anxiety that comes from not knowing what to do; 8. Working fluidly between concept-scale and detail scale to see how each informs each the other; 9. Always asking “what if...?” Regardless of how satisfied you are with your solution.

The tactics PPS advocates long have been baked into the development processes of many cities, though formulaic public design and private development suck the life out of them. Now urban developers have glommed onto the term, because Placemaking sounds like something that could sail through city-review regimes and sell. The trouble is, Placemaking does not itself make real place.

Though PPS claims to have completed projects in more than 3,000 communities and 43 countries, there is not one memorable example shown on its website. You can see some nice ye-olde streetscapes, some red-brick squares with happy children scrawling with chalk on a sidewalk. You’ll see public markets in faux-historical drag that would seem to undercut any claim to placeness or authenticity. But nothing that transforms a strip highway or dead mall into an environment that feels inevitable, extraordinary— that could be nowhere else.

Creating a sense of place, or divining its genius loci, has long been a concern of architects and landscape architects. That’s why truly unique public places are usually created by insightful designers who happen to be good listeners, good observers, and are capable of stirring together the sometimes-conflicting wishes of clients and citizens into a transcendent result none could have anticipated. The smart designers asks: What is this place’s essential uniqueness? Is there an eloquence that is perhaps underlying and needs to be teased out? How do I put something new here that does not screw up the valuable topography, view, history, or use that exists?

Let’s have a look at some actual places that work and some that don’t:

32 - The most effective, most creative problems solvers engage in a process of meta-thinking, or “thinking about the thinking”.

Meta-thinking means that you are aware of how you are thinking as you are doing the thinking. Meta-thinkers engage in continual internal (or in our case, external co-dialogue) of testing, stretching, criticising, and redirecting their thought processes.

Gasworks Park, Seattle // Works Landscape architect Richard Haag retained industrial remnants to frame views to the downtown skyline across Lake Union in this conversion of a polluting gasification plant to a park. Preserving industrial archeology was a new idea in the early 1970s, and many citizens objected to it in the community consultation that preceded construction.

Haag’s extraordinary insight and tenacity produced what was deemed an instant, unexpected hit in 1975, one of the most influential park designs of the 20th century, and still wildly popular in spite of being neglected and never completely finished. In a PPS-style process, where community input would seem to rule, the park, at best, would have been ordinary.

77 - No design system is or should be perfect.

Designers are often hampered by a well-intentioned but erroneous belief that a good design solution is perfectly systematic and encompasses all aspects of a design problem without exception. But nonconforming oddities can be enriching, humanising aspects of a project. Indeed, exceptions to the rule are often more interesting than the rules themselves.

Salk Center, La Jolla, California // Works The courtyard of this research centre is arguably one of the greatest public spaces in the world. It was designed by Louis Kahn with no public input. There is no retail, no bike lanes, no cute kids with balloons, in fact often no one. There is, instead, an extraordinary sublime, created out of stone, sky, sea and a rivulet of water. The Mexican architect Luis Barragán advised Kahn to eliminate planned rows of trees. “If you make this a plaza, you will gain a facade—a facade to the sky,” he said. He was right.

This could be extrapolated to show how the initial placemaking visions project an ideal, clean version of the site; whereas zoning and deliberately not providing a fully resolved solution across the whole site actually allows for the imperfections and complexities to come to light and be celebrated / used to inform newer and better solutions in the future. Same with the notion of waste management. Something that is usually kept behind the scenes and hidden is actually what is now moved to the forefront brought to align the two identities together. The part of the problem has become part of the solution.

Apple store, New York City // Works Architect Peter Bohlin describes this store, with a glass roof, furnished only with rows of wooden tables, and open to the street through a full-height glass wall, as akin to a market hall. He transformed a private retail space into an alluring public place through metaphor. You walk by and you almost can’t help walking in, because there are so many people who appear to be doing something interesting. Bohlin is a good observer and a smart listener with a transformative imagination.

84 - View on architecture.

ARCHITECTURE IS AN EXERCISE IN NARRATIVE - Architecture is a vehicle for the telling of stories, a canvas for relaying societal myths, a stage for the theatre of everyday life.

Millennium Park, Chicago // Works Skidmore Owings & Merrill made a tasteful neo-Beaux Arts formal space for quiet strolling and relaxation atop an open railyard. Millennium Park came alive, though, with monumental artworks by Jaume Plensa and Anish Kapoor, both of which visitors cannot get enough of. A bandshell of curling metal sheets, a serpentine pedestrian bridge, both by Frank Gehry, and a broad terraced garden by landscape architect Kathryn Gustafson have created an extraordinarily magnetic place—almost the only public place in the city equally enjoyed by visitors and Chicagoans alike. None of this was good enough for PPS author Jay Walljasper, who found it soulless, where a “sense of contentment and wonder was a secondary consideration.” And there were too few benches. Must all parks fit the same passive, trees-and-grass mould?

We could take the second meaning as our hopes for what becomes of the site. A place where the locals can fully express their own narrative through the frame of industry and the arts.

86 - Manage your ego & 87 - Careful anchor placements can generate activity.

If you want to be recognised for designing a good or even great building, forget about what you want the the building to be; instead ask, “What does the building want to be?”.

Apple Store on Broadway, NYC; Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, architect

South Lake Union, Seattle // Doesn't Work Tech workers stuck in suburban office parks look longingly to South Lake Union, at the edge of the city’s downtown and not far from a waterfront park. Bike racks and trolley? Check. Food trucks? Check. Mid-block pedestrian passageways? Check. South Lake Union is better than isolated suburban glass buildings ringed with parking lots. Yet this enclave built mainly for online retailer Amazon lacks two things: talent and insight. The buildings are clumsy and cheap; the streetscapes dull and enervated, the parklets feeble. This is exactly the kind of brain-dead urbanism checkbox “placemaking” promulgates.

This could be applied in terms of our site and how it’s been treated. The process of applying blanket statement identities, finite masterplan visions are inherently egotistical because they were projected without taking into account what the site and the people interacting with the site actually want from it. By opening it up to wider inputs for the overall and future development (sure, we might have to design and designate a starting point(s) using our knowledge and skill) we are mitigating this sense of god-control towards the management and ‘vision’ of it.

Rose Kennedy Greenway, Boston // Doesn't Work The burying of the elevated highway that cut through the centre of Boston—its famously expensive Big Dig—created an opportunity to develop a truly transformative sequence of public spaces that would thread the divided city together. But Boston, with endless public input, never came up with a plan to match the opportunity. This city, bursting with intelligence and talent, ended up with an embarrassing, lacklustre assortment of lawns, trees, bricks and such empty park gestures as an oversized sun shelter that stares at nothing

These designated starting points can be seen as ‘anchors’ that ground the concept to the site in the frame of industry and the arts. The unknown, development opportunities can become the ‘chain links’ between the anchor points.

The Atlanta Beltline // Probably Won't Work A very ambitious project to unite dozens of neighborhoods with a combination of trails, light rail, and parks along a necklace of abandoned rail lines. The project has been slow to progress in spite of enormous public approval and use, and a tsunami of development along the small portions of the project yet completed. While the Historic Fourth Ward Park pictured seems a bit clumsily over-engineered yet under-designed (by Perkins + Will with James Corner Field Operations), other parts too timidly engage the extraordinary variety of found conditions. The jury is still out because there is so much yet to be done, but the potential of the project is so extraordinary that Atlanta should not scrimp on either dollars or imagination.

“Cloud Gate” sculpture by Anish Kapoor, seen from below.

Conclusion What are the lessons here? Making great places is a more organic and less mechanical process than PPS makes it out to be. Yes, the public must be involved, and yes some places should be active social mixing bowls. But some places—especially extraordinary natural features—should be left alone. In others, we should recognize that what is unique is sometimes strange (like Gasworks’ rusting ruins). Recall that the rail line that hosts the High Line Park escaped demolition only because two intrepid people cared.

Enables the testing of ideas by having immediate response from the target users

PROJECT BRIEF BREAKDOWN

MODE OF WORKING DISCUSSED IN WEEK 1

OT

PLACEMAKING ATTEMPTS (pushed by council)

Allows the end-users to have a sense of autonomy and ownership over their own environment, fostering a stronger knit community

ARTS SCULPTURE TRAIL

Cookie-cutter blanket statements

BRIEFING DOCUMENT BREAKDOWN

URBAN PARK

Over time placemaking becomes place-breaking END OF YEAR OUTPUT / PRESENTATION?

INDUSTRY THESIS (WHAT?)

Who you might consult

BRIEFING DOCUMENT

A new approach to masterplanning that actively engages with local communities during its developmental stages and relies on their input through its enactment.

How you might consult

HALF PROCESS

Suggest a way of constructing / using a set of materials (systems built around site?)

Design fixed elements that have to be in place to unlock other areas of the site?

It's how the method / approach helps you design better design proposals.

Value of process (documented)

SET OF DESIGNED PROPOSAL / ELEMENTS 'ANCHORS'

SEMESTER 2

HALF ARCHITECTURE

Architectural output

At no point in time have Industry and the Arts been able to coexist on the site; the constant name changing of the site seems ot suggest only one or the other

MASTERPLAN

MASTERPLAN

To provide Gateshead Council with a new design approach towards the future evolution of the site. This approach will aim to guide the development of a new masterplanning approach that works to reconcile the two overarching identities of Industry and The Arts embodied by the site; whose continued placemaking attempts only worked to oppose these two themes. This ultimately resulted in 'place-breaking' the site.

ZONING TRUE IDENTITY, COMPLEXITY, GENIUS LOCI OF SITE

RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES

COMMERCE / RETAIL

SITE

BRIEF DEVELOPMENT EXERCISES IN WEEK 2 A group of configurable / multiple solutions that are not presented as finite. With a set of designed proposals / elements that unlock the opportunities of the configurable options.

INITIAL ANALYSIS / PATTERNS

"The process is just as important as the output."

From the site research these three key themes / identities emerged which led to the development of the thesis.

Embraces all layers of industry and complexities to be expressed

1. Critique cycle of placemaking.

2. Propose new approach to development and managing of the site.

3. Ground new approach in architectural theorem (co-designing, co-production etc.).

4. Reinforce new approach with examples.

5. Frame new approach within site themes/identities (industrial heritage & artistic value), elaborating on underpinning the: a. necessity for two design leads, one per theme; b. the need for collaboration 6. Introduce notion of 'anchor' and 'links'.

7. Designate 'development zones': a. stipulate anchor locations within; b. research & Analyse as to why they have been chosen; c. develop a design brief/suggest a strategy for these anchors. i. must include background research ii. explain reasoning iii. illustrate with analysis of built precedents 8. Develop a framework that allows council & wider stakeholders to be offered the opportunity to engage, comment, and contribute -- these will eventually become link locations.

9. Develop a framework for 'Selective Collaboration': a. relate collaborative strategy back to architectural theorem b. timetable / programme for specific conjuncture between design leads c. review form templates to be completed throughout masterplan development d. specific event calendar for consultations with wider stakeholders 10. Speculate on the wider application of this approach on a wider context - the treatment of post-industrial towns 11. Addendum: a. Showcase rigorous documentation and critical reflection of collaboration journey b. AOB

PERSPECTIVE FROM MATTHEW FREDERCIK (Architect, Writer) "Being process-orientated, not product-driven, is the most important and difficult skill for a designer to develop."

Being process orientated means: 1. Seeking to understand a design problem before chasing after the solutions; 2. Not force-fitting solutions to old problems onto new problems; 3. Removing oneself from prideful investment in the project and being slow to fall in love with the ideas; 4. Making design investigations and decisions holistically (that address several aspects of a design problem at once) rather than sequentially (that finalise one aspect of a solution before investigating the next) 5. Making design decisions conditionally — that is, with the awareness that they may or may not work out as you continue toward a final solution.; 6. Knowing when to change and when to stick to previous decisions; 7. Accepting as normal the anxiety that comes from not knowing what to do; 8. Working fluidly between concept-scale and detail scale to see how each informs each the other; 9. Always asking “what if...?” Regardless of how satisfied you are with your solution.

MANIFESTO (HOW?)

DRIVER

THESIS

MANIFESTO

LINES OF INQUIRY

BRIEFING DOCUMENT LINK BETWEEN ANCHORS

INITIAL RESEARCH

SEMESTER 1

A document with a set of opportunities, not a set of proposals

How you would approach them about the building of the proposals on site

Allows architects to pin-point exactly what the users need and want - derive a design strategies from them

To critique the council's top-down approach of placemaking towards the development of the site. The continued placemaking attempts led to place-breaking, resulting in the psychological and physical waste present on site.

Creating rigorous parameters for the collaborative aspect

Developed in conversation with each other.

Providing a more thoughtful and considerate design process - avoids superimposing what is assumed to be good strategies

INDUSTRY

DRIVER (WHY?)

JL

CO-DESIGN Incorporating the opinions of users, who are experts in their own experiences, to contribute to the creation of designs aimed to serve them.

SET OF UNLOCKED CONFIGURABLE / MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS 'LINKS'

We aim to reconcile the tension of Industry and The Arts, through their common theme of waste management. Waste is a by-product of both processes as well as the relics of past placemaking efforts that manifest itself in psychological waste (discarded / forgotten identities) and physical waste (fly-tipping).

INDUSTRY

WASTE MANAGMENT

SELECTIVE COLLABORATION Between Industry & The Arts to manage / mitigate the impact of all waste (psychological & physical) on site... this will lead to the reconciliation of both.

YEAR NARRATIVE THE ARTS 1. The site is stuck in a vicious cycle of place making attempts that have resulted in place breaking.

2. This is because the council’s approach towards a top down imposed identity on site has caused the genius loci to become lost and diluted.

3. We believe the only way forward is to reconcile and resurface the two overarching site identities of industrial heritage and artistic value through the common thread of waste management of these and previous place making efforts.

4. By providing the council with a critical analysis of the history up until now, we will justify the new approach based upon architectural (educational and professional theorem) in the form of a briefing document for the better development and managing of the site.

5. This briefing document will set up the parameters, guidelines (both process and design) and potential outputs to be implemented. This will form the basis of a joint Semester 1 Thesis.

6. Semester 2 will speculate a reality in which Gateshead Council has implemented this briefing document and has contracted two key design leads (one for each key theme) to work towards delivering the briefing document in liaison with each other, the council and wider stakeholders.

7. The result will be largely open ended, with certain definitive built interventions unlocking the potential for future various configurable/changeable options that can respond to the shifting needs and demands of the locals.

8. All of which ultimately work to reconcile and resurface the industrial and art identities embodied by the site to express and reaffirm the genius loci of the site.

Appendix A - Design Diary

237

Below // Traces Collective Design Evolution

238

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Appendix A - Design Diary

239

Below // Sketchbook (JL) Individual Process Recording & Design Evolution

240

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

Below // Sketchbook (OT) Individual Process Recording & Design Evolution

Appendix A - Design Diary

241

APPENDIX B Gateshead Council & Cycling

Access to Relevant Data This Appendix provides links to access data and online documents created by Gateshead Council that were used to guide and influence the development of the Transport Link (8.4).

OCHRE YARDS OPTIONS APPRAISAL https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/ar ticle/16791/Ochre-YardsOptions-Appraisal

GATESHEAD CYCLING STRATEGY REPORT https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/media/3854/Gateshead-CyclingStrategy/pdf/cyclingstrategy.pdf?m=636443661863630000

CYCLE - CYCLE LOCKERS + CYCLE PODS (NEXUS) https://www.nexus.org.uk/cycle

CYCLE PARKING REPORT https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/media/16121/EV-Tr05-Cycle-ParkInfo/pdf/EV_Tr05_Cycle_Park_Info.pdf?m=637068359076030000 IMPROVEMENTS FOR CYCLING AND WALKING IN GATESHEAD https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/article/16185/Improvements-forcycling-and-walking-in-Gateshead

242

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

https://www.nexus.org.uk/cycle/cycle-lockers https://www.nexus.org.uk/cycle/cycle-pods

Below // Scope for Improvement Map showing the public provision for secure bike storage around Newcastle and Gateshead. The racks (pods) and lockers are only found at Metro stations, omitting most of the urban centres. (Courtesy of Nexus Travel website)

Appendix B - Gateshead Council & Cycling

243

APPENDIX C

Collective Site Report: Gateshead Riverside Park

Group Work For the first half of the semester, the studio undertook group work investigating and analysing the initial site that would form the foundation of our thesis projects - Gateshead Riverside Park.

The document is divided into four key topics: 1. Historic & Cultural Context (JL + OT was part of this group) 2. Environmental Context 3. Physical & Material Context 4. Non-Physical Context These were further sub-divided into categories that related and fed into their respective topic. Various elements of this report have influenced this Briefing Document and where they were completed by a group different to the one that we were in, credit has been given.

Due to the length of the document we have included a series of thumbnail images of the report. For access to the full version please 244

Gateshead Tyne Bank // Briefing Document

visit the shared drive at using the link below. A full copy is available upon request. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aVLIoVU751TuqYZDrNhYpD4rDe sLwQGJ/view?usp=sharing

River Topography

SINK OR SOURCE

PARK MAPPING KEY ACCESS POINTS KEY GATHERING POINTS PEDESTRIAN LINKS TO SITE PATH CIRCULATION WILDLIFE RESERVE

P

PARKING

WHAT DOES THE EXISTING PARK CARBON SINK MEAN IN PRACTICAL TERMS ?

LOCAL SEQUESTERING VS LOCAL EMISSIONS

Its estimated that the average annual emission from a person in Newcastle is 4.5 tonnes of CO2.The population of the nearby Ward Dunston and Teams is 9114. This means that Dunston and Teams produces roughly 41000 tonnes of CO2 per year. Even optimistically, you would need 1975 ‘parks’ to sequester the local carbon emission.

A similar mismatch between local emissions and local sequestration has been shown in other studies. In fact, even the worlds largest carbon capture plant “Orca” would only sequester 10% of Dunston and Teams.

CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE

So, while the park will be sequestering some carbon, it is negligible compared with the amount of carbon we are producing as individuals.

= 0.33 people....

OPTIMISTIC ESTIMATE

It is important to note however that there is a significant amount of carbon already stored in the park: in the tree biomass and in the soil. Its estimated that the top metre of the world’s soils contains as much as 3 times as much carbon as the entire atmosphere. When soil is disturbed, the pores carrying gases are exposed and the trapped carbon is released. Significant amounts of carbon will released back into the atmosphere with interventions into the park, such as felling trees or excavating soil.

2

=

Additionally, while the park may not be doing much in terms of CO2, it is having positive effects on general air

quality. Its estimated that UK vegetation reduces concentrations of: PM2.5 by10%, PM10 by 6%, O3 by 13%, NH3 by 24% and SO2 by 30%.

4.6 people....

‘PARKS’ REQUIRED TO SEQUESTER DUNSTON AND TEAMS WARD

= Logged Mine Entry Location

Alluvium - Clay, Silt, Sand And Gravel. Superficial Deposits

Glaciolacustrine Deposits, Devensian Clay And Silt. Superficial Deposits

Development High Risk Area

Till, Devensian - Diamicton.

Superficial Deposits

Pelaw Clay Member - Clay. Superficial Deposits

No interpretation of the environment of deposition. These rocks are diverse in their origin. Their texture, structure or composition precludes a simple classification

Dense Trees and Vegetation

NE Mining & Groundwater Constraint

Site Environment/Topographical Analysis

High Tide Line

Glaciofluvial Deposits, Devensian Sand And Gravel

ACCESS & ROUTES - SUMMARY

Orca carbon capture plant, Iceland x1975

TREE SPECIES DISTRUBUTION ESTIMATE

PATHWAY ANALYSIS CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES

TREES ON SITE

PEDESTRIANS

The map illustrates the identified species istribution estimate on site via multiple site observation. The location of each dot is only an estimated area instead of the accurate location of the specific t ee.

PEDESTRIANS OUT ON A LEISURE WALK ARE ONLY USING THE RIVERSIDE PATHWAY. THE OTHER PATHS WITHIN THE PARK MAINLY GET USED WHEN SOMEONE IS SPECIFICALLY GOING TO AND FROM THE SURROUNDING HOUSING ESTATES OR CITY CENTRE ETC.

The variety of trees are provide different opportunities for animals and living organisms to grow and stay on site, creating more diverse biology.

CAN WE MAKE PATHWAY ROUTES WITHIN THE SITE MORE ATTRACTIVE FOR WALKING THROUGH? THE CURRENT SCULPTURES ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL IN DRAWING PEOPLE INTO THE MAIN PART OF THE SITE.

Common species: There are a large number of maple trees and ash trees on the whole site.

Willow, Aspen and Poplar trees are also scattered on the site where there is more sunlight. These trees are less dense and allow the light to screen through.

Pine trees are found after the King Edward Bridge on the west side mainly in a cluster. They are evergreen where their foliage stays on the tree in winter.

Other tree species are found relatively in a small area.

CYCLISTS

HAVE LITTLE INTERACTION WITH THE SITE AS THEY ARE ONLY USING THE RIVERSIDE PATH (A PART OF THE NATIONAL CYCLE ROUTE 14).

IS THERE A WAY TO INCORPORATE THE CYCLIST ROUTE FURTHER INTO THE SITE AND MAKE IT A MORE EXPERIENTIAL ROUTE AND MAYBE A FOCAL POINT ALONG THE CYCLE ROUTE?

LIMITED ‘OFFICIAL’ CAR ACCESS TO THE SITE DUE TO ‘BUS ONLY’ RULES ON MOST OF THE PIPEWELLGATE ROAD. HOWEVER, BUSSES NO LONGER USE THIS ROUTE. SHOULD THERE BE AN OFFICIAL ROAD THROUGH THE SITE FOR CARS? CAR PARKING IS AN ISSUE (CAR PARK FULL AND PEOPLE PARKING ALONG THE ROADSIDE) IS THIS SOMETHING WE CAN ADDRESS IN THE SITE?

A

A

A

B

B

B

CARS

3

B

PATHWAY 5

PATHWAY 3

PATHWAY 1

A

C

C

C

C

A

A B

B

C

C

PATHWAY 2

PATHWAY 7

PATHWAY 4

A

A

B

B

C

Common Ash Norway Maple Black Alder Black Poplar Downy Birch Common Hawthorn horn Large leaved Lime Scots Pine Common Beech Wild Cherry White Poplar White WIllow Aspen Unidentifie

C

PATHWAY 8

PATHWAY 6

A

KEY

B A - VERY GOOD B - REASONABLE C - POOR C - SAFETY (LIGHTING / EYES ON THE STREET) PATHWAY 9 - SURFACE QUALITY & ACCESSIBILITY - VIEWS - MEETING PLACES (AREAS TO STAND/STAY/SIT)

23

ACCESS & THROUGH ROUTES

Qualification Level

80

71.6

% Of Population

70

61.9

60

75.2

83.4

78.1

84.4

87.7

PHYSICAL | MATERIAL | ENVIRONMENTAL

BIODIVERSITY

Public observations, evidence of antisocial behaviour, peoples movement, lack of amenities and online reviews, show there appears to be quite a negative public perception of Gateshead Riverside Park.

Identifying existing and potential social stakeholders creates a clear overall image of the park. It identifies who is directly affected and who has an existing interest in any potential developments or changes to the space.

61.3

Using images taken from the site, sketches and words taken from online reviews, this picture collage attempts to visually represent the experience and perception the general public have of this space.

51.3

50

44.4

40

Universities

43.1 The existing social stakeholders identified in this diagram are split into three main categories;

33.9

20 9.2

10

8.6

6.4

0 NVQ3 (2 or more A levels or equivalent) and above

NVQ2 (5 or more A to C grade GCSEs or equivalent) and above

NVQ1 (fewer than 5 A to C grade GCSEs or equivelent) and above

No qualifications

Qualification Type Gateshead (%)

Newcastle (%)

2. Permanent locals; Local people/ groups of people who live in a close proximity to the site, they are permanent social stakeholders as they have a constant connection to the park due to their location.

3. Temporary groups; Community groups, charities, and local workers who spend a considerable amount of time near or around the site but do not live locally. They are able to visit and leave the space as they wish.

UK (%)

Community Groups

Sea Cadets

1. Students, young people and children; This includes any children/ youth groups close to the site, local schools and extends to universities and schools further

NVQ4 (undergraduate degree) and above

59

Public Perception

Social stakeholders, groups with a direct interest in the site that is not primarily financial.

30

4

30

Social Stakeholders

100 90

9114 people....

EXISTING SINK IN PRACTICAL TERMS

RIVERSIDE PARK + SALTMARSH GARDEN PARK STUDY

Immediate Schools

Gateshead Wildlife Groups Gateshead Riverside Park Stakeholders

Newcastle Schools

Perceptions; - The space is a route from A to B, there are no appropriate spaces for congregation.

- Anti- social behaviour makes the spaces feel intimidating and unsafe.

- Park is not maintained, paths are overgrown and slippery, limiting movement and accessibility.

- The lack of lighting, particularly at night makes the park unwelcoming and people feel at risk entering.

Trip Advisor Views and OpinionsJanuary 2021; “It felt a bit unsafe and it was covered in litter and fly tipping.

Horrid.”

October 2019; “It is a walkway, mainly overgrown, some uneven paths, debris, nothing pleasant, just an A to B walkway. Obviously a gathering point for some unsavoury characters if the number of cider bottles dumped is anything to go by.”

Gateshead Schools

July 2018; “Immediately felt uneasy...We decided to brave it regardless and headed up a flight of steps under an arch.”

Local Families Observations -

Qualification Level

Gateshead (Total)

Newcastle (Total)

Gateshead (%)

Newcastle (%)

UK (%)

NVQ4 (undergraduate degree) and above NVQ3 (2 or more A levels or equivalent) and above NVQ2 (5 or more A to C grade GCSEs or equivalent) and above NVQ1 (fewer than 5 A to C grade GCSEs or equivelent) and above No qualifications

43,200 65,500 91,400 106,400 11,700

88,600 123,600 150,200 168,500 17,100

33.9 51.3 71.6 83.4 9.2

44.4 61.9 75.2 84.4 8.6

43.1 61.3 78.1 87.7 6.4

Students, young people and children Permanent locals Temporary groups

Local Elderly Community

October 2021; - Two people walking quickly along the rivers edge pathway, heads down, wanting to get from one destination to another.

- Two women looking to walk through the park, approach the first art sculpture on the most Northerly part of the site, both look confused and unsure if they have found the right route.

Both decide not to enter the woodland and walk towards the riverside path.

- One man walking this dog through the various pathways, he actively avoids the woodland by crossing the road to the path on the other side.

Appendix C - Collective Site Report: Gateshead Riverside Park

245