Issuu on Google+

ANALYSIS OF DENSITY, TYPOLOGY, AND URBAN CHARACTER QUEENS CLUB GARDENS CA2

Scale 1:5000 0

1

100

N

250


SITE OVERVIEW

LAYOUT, DENSITY & TYPOLOGY: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM/ EARLS COURT The assessed site within this report is located within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Located within close proximity to the Earls Court, Chelsea and Belgravia to the East the site contains predominately affluent neighbourhoods. The outlined site located to the right of CA2 Queens Club Gardens (highlighted in blue Fig 2) is a controversial regeneration site approved by former Mayor Boris Johnson. The new Mayor Sadiq Khan has recently has decided to revise the scheme due to widespread opposition, this document therefore aims to analyse the key layout, densities and typology of the Queens Club Gardens Character Area to help support the Mayor’s decision.

Methodology In order to conduct a comparative analysis of urban building types, literature and design review assessments documents were selected to aid the reviewer in his findings and understanding of the location’s various characteristics. For this comparative analysis the Quality of the Urban Realm, Character Interface, Movement and Permeability, and Perception of Safety were addressed within this report as Shahideh (2013) identifies the ‘quality of the urban environment impacts how the user interacts with the street’ (pp. 8-15). To understand the site in more detail and comprehend the context in which the two localised sites sit within, site visits were conducted on 1/10/16, 22/10/16 and 2/11/16. The site visit’s intention was to further understand the character of the built environment from a primary perspective with observational ethnography used to identify any movement patterns seen within the two localised sites.

CA2 QUEENS CLUB GARDENS Brief Overview of land Use and Typology Key Residential Typologies

Green Spaces

• • • • •

• • •

Terrace Mews Mansion Block Perimeter Tower

‘Pure’ Private Semi-Private ‘Pure’ Public

Major Routes and Transportation Links

Use of Space

Road

• • • • •

• • • •

A4: W Cromwell Road (North) North End Road (East) A312 (South) A219: Fulham Palace Road (West)

Residential Mixed-Use Religious Buildings Private and Public Green Space Public Roads and Pavements

Tube Stations • •

Barons Court (North) West Kensington Station (North)

Scale 1:5000 0

Fig 1: LONDON

2

Fig 2: HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM/ EARLS COURT: CA2 QUEENS CLUB GARDENS

100

Fig 3: QUEENS CLUB GARDENS WITH ASSESSED SITES HIGHLIGHTED

N

250


SITE OVERVIEW

CA2: QUEENS CLUB GARDENS The ‘Character Area Analysis’ developed by (HF&KC, 2012) outlines that the Site is characterised by the “large open areas of Queens Club Gardens, Hammersmith Cemetery and Normand Park and by a strong east-west morphology of terraced housing” (p.4), the strong east west morphology that the HF&KC identify is clearly seen within Fig 4. What the HF&KC fail to mention however is the other prominent typologies that create the CA.

The forgotten typologies within the Queens Club Garden that help define the character of the area.

2

As seen in Fig: 1, the two chosen typologies sit within very close proximity to one another yet share little in common in terms of character, layout and typology. The Queens Club Gardens (Site 1), which also shares the same name as the Character Area is located within the QCG Conservation Area 11 whilst the Chesson Road/ Archel Road Terrace Block (site 2) is not.

1

The way the two different sites influence the public realm differs dramatically. The Queens Club Gardens elegant facades create a powerful and grand image of the area. Chesson Road and Archel Road however use trees and shrubbery to create a more peaceful yet equally beautiful streetscape.

Scale 1:5000 0

100

250 N

Fig 4: FIG GROUND 1: 5000 DISPLAYING THE TWO CHOSEN TYPOLOGIES

1

Image 1: QUEENS CLUB GARDENS

3

2

Image 2: ARCHEL ROAD (LEFT HAND SIDE ASSESSED BLOCK)

Fig 5: AREA 11 CONSERVATION AREA OUTLINE


QCG Entire Site Gross Density – Including Roads, Pavement and Semi-Private Park Plot Area: 32,614.29 m2 Building Area: 10,459.77 m2 Floor Area: 47,068.965m2 FAR: 1.44 = 1.4 Coverage: 31.2% = 31% Units per Hectare (ha): 164 Units/ha Units: 536

d Ro man ad

s

en

ens

Plot Area: 19,483.19 m2 Building Area: 10,459.77 m2 Floor Area: 47,068.965 m2 FAR: 2.42 = 2.4 Coverage: 53.7% = 54% Units per Hectare (ha): 275 Units/ha Units: 536

ard

d

Roa

y

Gre

QCG Entire Site Net Density – Excluding Road, Pavement and Semi-Private Park • • • • • • •

nd hou

N or

• • • • • • •

G ub s Cl een Qu

DESCRIPTIVE ACCOUNT

PERIMETER MANSION BLOCK

ee

Qu

Within this report the collective Mansion Blocks are referred to as a Perimeter Mansion Block due to the enclosed perimeter like structure that is created when viewed as one collective entity. The residents of the Mansion block have exclusive access to the Garden seen within Fig: 6. As all the residents have access to use the green space as they wish, the space is referred to as Semi-Private as own individual does not own it. The Cross Section shows how vast the Semi-Public Green is also and helps put in perspective the scale of the site.

lub

C ns

rd Ga

s

en

s en

b

Clu

rd Ga

e

Qu

Scale 1:1250

0

20

50 N

From this axonometric model we can see the site is a prominent feature and helps us understand the site’s morphology. Fig 6: SITE MAP 1:1250 OF THE QUEENS CLUB GARDEN PERIMETER MANSION BLOCK No trees obstruct the Public Pavements

Wide Open Semi-Public Green space available to the residents of the Queens Club Garden Mansions Facade adds character to the streetscape

Private Semi-Private Public Pavement Public Road Private Garden

8.5m 2m

21.5m 2m

4

Private Semi-Private

8.3m

52m 2m

2.1m

2m

18.5m 2.5m

Fig 7: CROSS-SECTION OF THE QUEENS CLUB GARDEN SITE


DESCRIPTIVE ACCOUNT

TERRACE ROW Chesson Road Net Density

Archel Road Net Density

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

Plot Area: 2,143.55m2 Building Area: 1,104.31 m2 Floor Area: 3,941.04 m2 FAR: 1.84 = 1.8 Coverage: 51.5% = 52% Units per Hectare (ha): 173 Units/ha Units: 37

Plot Area: 2,163.51m2 Building Area: 1,131.75m2 Floor Area: 4,139.82m2 FAR: 1.91 = 1.9 Coverage: 52.3% = 52% Units per Hectare (ha): 157 Units/ha Units: 34

Chesson Road/ Archel Road Combined Net Density • • • • • • • •

Plot Area: 4,307.06 m2 Building Area: 2,236.06 m2 Floor Area: 8080.86 m2 FAR: 1.87 = 1.9 Coverage: 51.9% = 52% Units per Hectare (ha): 165 Units/ha Units: 71 The Terrace Row in the Queens Club Gardens Character Area is unlike most other terraced rows seen within London. The Streets are clean, well maintained, have a large separation between the fronts of the building and are attractive partially due to the varying array of trees and shrubbery that dominate the Public Realm. The Cross Section below shows how these streets have a basement front garden that allows more light to enter the underground rooms.

The 3D model right shows how the Chesson and Archel Road buildings are uniform in height. The model also shows how the block is surrounded by a ‘grid-iron pattern’ street structure. Fig 6: SITE MAP 1:1250 OF THE CHESSON ROAD/ ARCHEL ROAD TERRACE ROW The trees are a prominant feature within these

Private Gardens Divided by a fence: approx. 5m per Dwelling

Wide Public Realm

Private Semi-Private Public Pavement Public Road Private Garden

5

Private Semi-Private

Fig 7: CROSS-SECTION OF THE CHESSON ROAD/ ARCHEL ROAD TERRACE ROW


INTERPRETIVE ACCOUNT

CHARACTER INTERFACE

Image 3: QUEENS CLUB GARDENS

Image 4: QUEENS CLUB GARDENS

PERIMETER MANSION BLOCK

TERRACED ROW

• • • • • • • • •

Each individual facade of the Mansions are beautifully detailed and are almost symmetrical with neighbouring buildings which gives a balanced and complete feel to the streetscape. The Victorian facade used at the top of the buildings give a clean finish to the roof line that compliments the colour choice of the brick. The staggered frontage and angled windows not only provided privacy to the residents, but also creates a more interesting and inviting streetscape than a straight edged building as seen in many Victorian Terraced Rows in East London. The facade, use of staggered frontage and the highly maintained image of the area produce a grand and elegant feel to that defines the character of the site. The path leading to the entrances are well presented and covered in a crème asphalt surface that is inviting to disabled and less abled users. The entrances into the buildings are usually hidden around a tight corner, which although can be argued to be uninviting helps deter loitering and unwelcomed guests that can be seen as a positive. A raised metal railing surrounds each building that is not only a safety feature (security-wise and to stop people falling off the edge of the pavement into the basement area) but also helps clearly identify public and private land in a elegant manner that enhances the public realm. Trees located outside each mansion block (Image 1,3,4) and those located within the semi-private gardens gives an impression of ‘country living within the city’ image that the likes of Ebenezer Howard may have envisioned in his Garden City concepts. There is however a sense of being cloistered whilst visiting the site that is rather unusual considering there are only buildings on one side of the street. This is caused by the towering three story trees within the semi-private garden creating a wall like facade that forms the impression of being confined. Although the width of building to building across the Semi-Public Garden is 1:5.4, Camillo Sitte (1889 cited in Carmona et al, 2012 p.141) suggests using a ‘ratio less than 1:3 for streets as anything above would be a square’. The trees within the Queens club Gardens are seen to act as a barrier reducing the

1:1

The trees act as a wall like facade, thus confining the space

The street width to building height ratio is approximately 1:1, a ratio typically found along mews streets.

Fig 8: RATIO 1:1 QUEENS CLUB GARDENS

6

Image 5: ARCHEL ROAD

• • • • • •

Image 6: CHESSON ROAD

The facades of the Terraced Rows, much like the Mansion the block are symmetrical in physical form besides the loft room conversion that a lot of the buildings are without. As Chesson Road and Archel Road are outside the Conservation Area (Fig: 5), there seems to be leniency in the colour of the facade. This creates a more vibrant streetscape yet retains the sense of sophistication through maintenance and cleanliness along the two streets. The Terrace Row has a rather unique style entrance as the steps go up to the raised ground floor. This style enhances the streetscape especially when complimented with green shrubbery that is seen in many of the front gardens along the two streets. Unlike the mansion block the front door is visible to the road, this also discourages crime through passive surveillance (BFL12, 2015 p.12). The protruding ground floor facade topped with a detailed roof adds character and extra personality to the street. Image 7 shows the front garden of an Archel Road property. The railing surrounding the perimeter of the front garden distinguishes clearly private from public.

Image 7: ARCHEL ROAD FRONT GARDEN/ BASEMENT

Image 8: CHESSON ROAD FACADE


TERRACE ROW

PERIMETER MANSION BLOCK d

Roa

Wide Streetscape created by the set back Terraced Houses

dR man Nor

und

yho

Gre

oad

bG s Clu

een Qu s

en ard

INTERPRETIVE ACCOUNT

QUALITY OF THE PUBLIC REALM

ee

Qu

lub

C ns

ns

rde

Ga

Fig 9: NO ROUTE THROUGH THE QUEENS CLUB GARDEN SITE INTO NORMAND PARK FROM GREYHOUND ROAD

s

en

bG

ard

n

ee

Qu

lu sC

Fig 10: THE SET BACK HOUSING ENHANCES THE PUBLIC REALM Normand Park

0

Scale 1:1250 20

50 N

Image 9 and 10: THICK TREES RESTRICT VIEW OF THE VIEW OF PEDESTRIANS (LEFT) and THE SEMI-PRIVATE GARDENS SOLELY FOR THE RESIDENTS OF QUEENS CLUB GARDENS (RIGHT)

The quality of the public realm on first glance could be argued to be of the highest of quality, however there are some exceptions. Although there are many pros ie:

The Terraced Row much like Queens Club Gardens presents a high quality public realm due to a number of various reasons.

• • •

Wide Pavements (2m) unrestricted by trees have a flat even surface for the majority (BFL 12, 2015 p.16) Improved safety at night (Evenly spaced out Public and Private Streetlights Clearly defined Public and Private space

On the contrary the Public Realm is restricted due to: • • • •

7

Image 11 and 12: FOCAL POINT CREATED BY THE STRIAGHT ROAD LAYOUT (LEFT) and SHARP EDGE REDUCING VEHICLE SPEED (RIGHT)

Lack of “Multi-functional space” (BFL 12, 2015 p.6), which would allow citizens to interact. Restrictive Route [Connectivity] (BFL12, 2015 p.16): however the connectivity is better than if it was a closed off perimeter block. The open Semi-Public Space Is not accessible to the general public. The thick trees used within the Semi-Public Open Space restrict pedestrian view of the road ahead when walking.

• •

The ease of movement (despite some obstacles such as tree stumps) is enhanced by the focal points created by the straight road (Image 11). The use of greenery creates an inviting and welcoming public realm. The setback buildings along with the wide street width create an open gardenesque streetscape.

Despite these positives the public realm has potential to do more as: • •

The sharp harsh edges of the typological layout can be argued to be unappealing to the eye. The long straight road (Chesson Road and Archel Road) can cause car speeds to increase, however the on street parking and sharp corners are seen as “cost effective ways of changing driver behaviour in residential areas” (BFL12, 2015 p.14).

What is the Public Realm? : The term ‘public’ is defined by Adhya as “open to the people as a whole” Oxford English Dictionary, 2004 cited in Adhya, 2012 p. 12), the term public realm however can be viewed in more detail. Arc (2010) suggests that the Public Realm specifically addresses “any publically owned street, pathways, right of ways, parks, publically accessible open spaces and any public and civic buildings and facilities.” (para 1). Many authors such as Gehl (2010, 2013) have studied and addressed how we should improve and better design the public realm with documents such as BFL12 and Quality Reviewer similarly aiming to achieve the same goal.


INTERPRETIVE ACCOUNT

MOVEMENT: WIDER SCALE •

• • •

Normand Road

Pedestrian Movement • • • •

Fig 11: VEHICLE FLOW COUNT 22/10/16: (11:30am -12:00 MID-DAY) Due to the close proximity of the two assessed sites the pedestrian and vehicle count was assessed together.

Within the residential streets the most widely used streets used tended to be the wider streets such as Normand Road, which incidentally had very few parked vehicles on the day of the data collection (see Image: 13). The ease of access to the nearby tube stations and bus stations could explain why very few cars were in use within the residential areas (Fig: 11). The vehicle types most identified using the residential streets were delivery and maintenance vehicles (vans). The movement of the vehicles along Chesson Road/ Archel Road and the Queens Club Gardens were relatively slow paced. What was identified was that the narrowing of the road created by the parked cars meant the driver was more cautious of pedestrian movement.

Fig 12: PEDESTRIAN FLOW COUNT 22/10/16: (12:00 MID-DAY - 12:30am)

The data collected on the 22/10/16 shows us that the majority of the movement taking place occurred along Norman Road. With a total of 93 pedestrians walking along Norman road from 12-12.30am. This data however may be skewed due to a family event taking place in the park. Nevertheless, the results show how well used and vital Norman Road is to the local community as it is the quickest route to Barons court and West Kensington Station located in the North of Fig: 13. Of the Pedestrians walking East-West, many tended to cut through Queens Club Gardens as a short cut to re-join onto Greyhound Road. The Perimeter style enclosure however restricts movement flowing North to South which inhibits pedestrians largely. The 2m wide pavements seen in Image 14 is inviting for pedestrians to walk along. To the left of the image the metal railing enforces the distinction of private and public land.

BUS STOP

Vehicular Movement •

The data collected between 11:30-12 on Saturday 22/10/16 shows us that constant flows of traffic are less likely to occur within the residential streets instead vehicular movement is most prominent along the A218 (Lillie Road) to the South and the B317 (North End Road) to the East.

BUS STOP

BUS STOP BUS STOP BUS STOP Scale 1:3000 0

Image 13: NORMAND ROAD (22/10/16)

8

Image 14: QUEENS CLUB GARDENS PAVEMENT

40

80

120

200

N

Fig 13: TRANSPORT LINKS


INTERPRETIVE ACCOUNT

PERMEABILITY AND MOVEMENT PERIMETER MANSION BLOCK

Movement Building Entrances

Although during the pedestrian movement data collection only two people were seen using the ‘asphalt surfaced pavement’ (Fig: 12), the surface would be more accommodating to wheelchair users and the elderly as the smooth surface reduces the risk of tripping over or getting a wheel caught in the pavement cracks. As observed during the site visits and on Fig: 3,4 and 11, there are no trees planted along the public pavement within the Queens Club Garden site. This again is accommodating to the less able bodied and enhances their movement along the street. The site is identified to have only two entrances; this therefore reduces the permeability of the site significantly. However it can be noted that this intentional restriction is undertaken to increase privacy within the area, which benefits the residents at the expense of the public.

TERRACED ROW

Building Exits

Gate Iron Fencing

Fig 16: CHESSON/ ARCHEL ROAD ENTRANCES/ EXITS

N

Fig 14: QUEENS CLUB GARDENS ENTRANCES/ EXITS • •

Building Entrances

N

Fig 14 indicted the entrances and exits of the Perimeter Mansion Block. The rear entrances seen on the South, West and partially the East of the Block can be accessed through gates depicted as two straight lines. The jagged line indicates gates that restrict the movement and permeability of the Mansion Blocks. The only way to get into the front garden of the Mansion Blocks is by entering the building then existing through the basement doors. This however is done intentionally to allow as much sunlight into the basements as possible yet reduce the risk of burglary.

• • Image 15 and 16: ENTRANCES TO QCG (LEFT), ARCHEL ROAD • (RIGHT) • •

The images above show the two different types of entrances found at the two sites. The left image can be argued to be more user friendly due to its limited steps and the smooth asphalt surface leading up to the front door. The right is not the most accommodating to movement as even everyday choirs such as ‘taking the rubbish out’ are made harder by the stepped entrance leading up to the porch.

The Terraced Row facade unlike the Mansion Blocks has two entrances. One to the ground floor of the property and one to the basement meaning residents have greater permeability within their own homes. The residents unlike the Queens Club Garden have individual gardens rather than a communal garden, they therefore also have a rear exit to access the green space. The Figure below shows the trees, streetlights and obstacles (telephone pole and signposts). As seen in Image: 17 the trees routes take up a large proportion of the pavement that is only 2.3m wide. This is likely to cause difficulty most difficultly to those in wheelchairs and those pushing strollers.

Building Entrances

QCG Building Entrances

Public Street Lights

Public Street Lights

Public Space Trees

Paving Slab Surface

Other Obstructions Paving Slab Surface

Smooth Asphalt Surface

N

Fig 15: QUEENS CLUB GARDENS SURFACE MATERIAL AND STREETLIGHTS

9

Image 17: CHESSON ROAD PAVEMENT

N

Fig 17: CHESSON/ ARCHEL ROAD STREET SURFACE MATERIAL AND OBSTACLES


INTERPRETIVE ACCOUNT

PERCEPTION OF SAFETY QUEENS CLUB GARDENS •

The perception of Safety is a key aspect within the public realm that cannot be overlooked. As Safety cannot be measured on a scale, the perception of safety will be assessed by identifying street lights (public and private), residents’ field of vision onto the streets and layout of the road. As identified on the data collection (Fig: 12) the majority of the pedestrians took the long straight road as opposed to walking down the curbed road. The curbed road however reduces sharp corners along the road that can attract perpetrators to in. the curbed shape can also increase pedestrian’s visibility along a road, allowing the pedestrians to react quicker to un-safe or unexpected incidents. The fact that there are no bushes for perpetrators to hid behind as the all are secured behind the iron fence was one of the key aspects the researcher identified as a key aspect. In recent news many crimes have occurred with criminals jumping out from behind bushes or from dark corners. For example “Man exposes himself to six women after jumping out of a bush on Hampsted Heath” (Proto, 2016).

• • •

The long straight roads along with the other grid-iron pattern streets around Fig 20: CROSS SECTION OF SIGHT ONTO THE the block could be argued to attract crime as criminals can hide behind street STREET (CHESSON ROAD) corners. Despite this the streetscape and inviting nature of the streets reduces the unsafe stigma that are sometimes attached to Grid Iron Pattern Streets. The straight wide road has been identified to attract reckless speeds of vehicle movement. However, the parking space on either side of the road is an effective way to reduce speed of vehicles adding to people’s perception of safety, especially for their children. Although the Dwellings per hectare is a lot less than QCG the fact that there are dwellings on both sides of the streets enhances the perception of safety as there a lot of eyes looking onto the street and ears in close proximately in case of emergency. The raised ground floor window of the units also increases the view that the residents see of the street, however the pedestrians walking along have less of 8.3m a view into the residences which can take away from the perception of safety, as 2m 2m this is partly what makes a place feels safe. 2.5m Although there are many trees located along the road next to the streetlights, the trees in most cases tower above the street lights or have less branches, which 18.5m does not limit the light reaching the roads and paved area. This is demonstrated clearly within Image: 18.

The vision of the residents are locked by the trees of the Semi-Public Garden

Fig 19: BIRDS EYE VIEW OF SIGHT ONTO THE STREETS (QUEENS CLUB GARDENS)

10

Wide field of vision of the public realm

CHESSON ROAD/ ARCHEL ROAD

Fig 18: CROSS SECTION OF SIGHT ONTO THE STREET (QUEENS CLUB GARDENS)

The Iron gates around the semi-private gate and the buildings themselves also add security. The Street Lights located along the road enhance the perception of safety as ‘crime is reduced in well-lit areas especially at night’ (Atkins et al, 1991). The private street lights embedded into the buildings themselves adds to a sense of security to the residents themselves. It also deters loiterers and uninvited guests for using the space in a ‘joy ride’ manner without the consent of the residents.

Fig 21: BIRDS EYE VIEW OF SIGHT ONTO THE STREETS (CHESSON ROAD/ ARCHEL ROAD)

Trees block the vision of residents onto the Public Realm

Image 18: STREET LIGHT POSITIONED ALONG (CHESSON ROAD)

Image 19: RAISED GROUND FLOOR (CHESSON ROAD)


CONCLUSION

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LITERATURE Density Over recent years the density debate has been at the heart of much controversy. Boyko and Cooper (2011) identify that “density, in a spatial sense, may be defined simply as a number of units in a certain area. [However there is much confusion over calculations as] there are many different definitions depending on what kind of density is being sought” (p. 6); thus leading to varying figures acquired on the collection method. Pont and Haupt (2009) also raise the concern that “an individual perception of density can differ completely from the more technical perspective of density” (p.72). What Pont and Haupt (2009) draw upon is that ‘perceived density should not be used to misguide the technical density and vice-versa’ (pp. 72-73). Dovey and Payka (2014) addresses that instead of choosing which form of density measurements work most appropriately (building, people or open space) we should aim to ‘focus on the dynamic relationship between them in the form of a density assemblage’ (p.73). The topic of density is one that is very much discussed within academic circles, however there is no definitive answer to ‘what is the ideal density?’ From a purely economically driven approach and setting calculations aside Shuttleworth (2015) has suggested that London will have to look to intensify densification efforts in order to meet the UK housing demands “densifying existing areas can [just about] provide the number of houses we need in the future at the same time create vital cities” (p.74). This is a bold statement to make but one that is could equally be true for the future of planning and urban design in the UK. The two sites assessed within this document, boast relatively high Dwelling/ ha. With the Queens Club Garden site housing 275 Dwelling/ ha (Net Density), despite this high density the site has managed to achieved exceptional quality overall.

CONCLUSION

QUEENS CLUB GARDENS STRENGTH • •

STRENGTH •

Typology and Layout are both heavily linked to Density. Dovey (2016) addresses that Density is directly influenced by Typology. For instance within a Courtyard “densities can be much higher because of efficient use of open space with high levels of privacy” (p.70). Within this report two different typologies and layouts were identified, both of which have their strengths and weaknesses. Dovey (2016) shrewdly identifies that “typological thinking can easily become formularized as a thoughtless repetition of types” (p.78), this is a key point that should be carefully acknowledged within any masterplanning project.

To summarise, the literature addresses strongly that it is ill advised to study density without acknowledging the existing typology and layout that pre-exists within a given location (Dovey, 2016). In order to do this we must carefully consider each aspect of the built environment and more importantly the context in which it sits in before making radical decisions, as Gehl (2013) quotes “nothing in this world is more simple and more cheap than making cities that provide better for people” (para. 1 cited in Ferraro, 2013).

The Quality of the Public Realm could be adapted to be more accommodating to the public as currently there is a sense of uninvitedness that is felt within the site. The permeability of QCG could be improved; this is due to the fact that there are currently no routes through the site from Greyhounds Road to Normand Park (Fig:12). The Semi-Private Park is currently underused (as observed within the site visits). Opening it out to the public could increase a sense of community within the area.

WEAKNESS

The Permeability of the site on the whole is very • good. The site is ideally located for the use of public transport, which reduces the use of private vehicles. • The visibility of the street from the residential properties enhances the perception of safety. The public realm is of a high quality that is proven to ‘deter loiters’ (Kensington and Chelsea, 2006).

Tree roots and various other obstacles such as telephone poles that can be a hindrance to wheelchair users restrict the movement along the pavement. There is little public space that can be used for social interactions, currently it is used as more of a passing street; one used to get from A to B.

POINTS TO CARRY FORWARD INTO THE EARLS COURT REDEVELOPMENT Due to the time constraints imposed on this coursework a more thorough analysis could not be produced. Nevertheless, a report assessing Queens Club Gardens and Chesson/ Archel Road was produced which can be used as a basis to examine the Queens Club Gardens Character Area. In the redevelopment of the Earls Court Site key features of Density, Layout and Typology should be considered, these are: • • • • •

11

WEAKNESS

CHESSON ROAD/ ARCHEL ROAD

Typology and Layout

Shibu (2010) reiterates the importance of typology, as it not only influences the layout of a city but also alters “the amount of social activity and nature and structure of social networks in the neighbourhoods” (p.77), which is partially seen within the mansion blocks site within the Queens Club gardens.

The intricate detail and staggered frontage of the buildings add to the quality of the public realm. The data shows that movements within the Queens Club Gardens are scarcer than surrounding streets such as Normand Road. This can be seen as an advantage as it increases privacy to the residents. The street lights (Public and Private) add to the sense of security felt within Queens Club Gardens especially at night.

A density that compliments the medium density found within the Queens Club Gardens Character Area, with consideration for the local economy and transport links. The street width should be of generous size, as seen in the Character Area, with set back facades used, as this seems to be a key feature particularly within the centre of the Queens Club Gardens. The character Interface should be of high quality with intricate detail embedded into the facade. Private and Public Green space should be plentiful within the redevelopment; a real emphasis on greenery. Perception of safety should be achieved through well designed public realm, complimented by streetlights and reduction in harsh cornered roads.


REFERENCES

References Adhya, A. 2008. The Public Realm as a place of everyday urbanism: Learning from four college towns. PhD Thesis: University of Michigan. ARC. 2011. What is Public Realm [Online]. Available at: http://www.arc-online.co.uk/public-realm/ what-is-public-realm [Accessed Date: 2/11/16]. Atkins, S. et al. 1991. The Influence of Street Lighting on Crime and Fear of Crime. Crime Prevention: Unit Paper 28. pp. 1-59. BFL12 (Building for Life). 2015. The sign of a good place to live. Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University. Boyko, C. T. and Cooper, R. 2011. Clarifying and re-conceptualising density. Progress in Planning : 76(1) pp. 1-61. Carmona, M et al. 2012. Public Places - Urban Spaces. London: Routledge. Dovey, K. and Elek Pafka. 2014. The Urban Density Assemblage: Modelling Multiple Measures. Urban Design International 19(1) pp. 66-76. Dovey, K. 2016. Type in Urban Density Thinking - A conceptual Toolkit. London: Bloomsbury. pp. 69-78. Ferraro, N. Jan Gehl: People-Friendly Cities Are Cheap & Easy [Online]. Available at: http://www. planetizen.com/node/64678 [Accessed Date: 5/11/16]. Gehl, J. 2010. Cities for People. Washington: Island Press. Gehl, J. 2013. How to study Public Life. Wahington: Island Press. HF&KC (Hammersmith and Fulham & Kensignton and Chelsea). 2012. Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area Joint Supplementary Planning Document: Character Area Analysis [Online]. Available at: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/section_attachments/character_ area_analysis_tcm21-170138.pdf [Accessed Date: 17/10/16]. Kensignton and Chelsea. 2006. Designingout crime: supplementary planning document [Online]. Available at: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/designingoutcrime_spd.pdf [Accessed Date: 4/11/16]. London Gardens Online. Queens Club Gardens Conservation [Online]. Available at: http://www.londongardensonline.org.uk/gardens-online-record.asp?ID=HAF045a [Accessed Date: 7/11/16]. [Online]. Available at: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/man-exposes-himself-to-six-women-after-jumping-out-of-a-bush-a3250286.html [Accessed Date: 6/11/16].

12


Density, Typology and Urban Character