ARC-6115
Critical Study in Architecture
Dissertation:
How does the design of public spaces and diversified programmatic activities influence user experience and contribute to the urban vitality of King’s Cross?
by Sandip SinghContents
• Introduction to King’s Cross
• Spatial Dynamics and Pedestrian Behaviour
• Tactical Urbanism in Action: Programmatic Dynamism at King’s Cross
• Evaluating User Experience and Urban Vitality at King’s Cross
• Conclusion
• Figures
• References
• Bibliography
• Appendix
Introduction to King’s Cross
The pursuit to drive interest and redefine an industrial site for economic and social growth is a testament to the impact of bold and inventive design choices on perception, atmosphere, and user experience. This essay aims to examine the redevelopment of King’s Cross in London, through literature, data analysis, and activity mapping as methodological tools; to better understand the efficacy of public spaces and the diversification of programmatic activities to foster organic human interactions and enriching experiences. This relationship between the space and its users is essential for understanding the subsequent urban vitality of King’s Cross, a set of qualities assessable through measurable indicators.
Originally, King’s Cross was a marshy area on the outskirts of 18th-century London, inhabiting the dispossessed proximal to medical facilities like a smallpox hospital (Bishop & Williams, 2016); accompanied by the Great Dust Heap (as seen in Figure 1) a mound of noxious refuse composed of household ash, dust, glass and bones discarded by the locals and picked through by scavengers through to the mid-19th century (Bishop & Williams, 2016).
A key theme in the site’s history is its continuous development. For instance, the accommodation of the Regent’s Canal in 1820 in response to the growing population; connected the industrial Midlands and its resources (Bishop & Williams, 2016); resulting
in an industrialised intercity, suburban, and underground services hub. This naturally directed the site’s development towards tenement and industries, followed by the construction of King’s Cross Station and St Pancras Station fuelled by competitive rail companies in the mid-1900s, significantly boosting the city’s goods trade (Bishop & Williams, 2016).
Following the demolition of thousands of homes when constructing two stations, it prompted the development of an ulterior expansion of low-quality housing, (Bishop & Williams, 2016); solidifying King’s Cross as a hub for the less privileged. This social divide was starkly evident in Charles Booth’s 19th-century poverty map (as seen in Figure 2) highlighting the economic disparities and living conditions of that era, displaying the dense, impoverished, and semi-criminal areas in blue and black respectively; often prone to violence and unhealthy living conditions (The London Museum, 2022).
Figure 2 - Charles Booth, (1898–99), Map of Poverty in London housing shaded dark blue and black was occupied by the vicious and semi-criminal’ classes.
After World War II, King’s Cross deteriorated, gaining Infamy due to crime and illicit activities (Ivers, 2018). This led to, a shift towards containerised rail freight making the goods hub at King’s Cross redundant, leading to abandoned and derelict spaces. This decline impacted local employment exacerbating social issues and leading to a disinvestment in the area as described by Bishop and Williams (2016).
From inauspicious and industrial beginnings, King’s Cross required major reformation. Hence, through the rise in funding over the 2000s an open competition held by the King’s Cross LLP, was awarded to Argent St George for the role of development partner (Bishop & Williams, 2016). The firm had established itself in developing Brindley Place in Birmingham, demonstrating the importance of the public realm; Argent recognised the necessity of drawing people to infuse urban spaces with energy and significance (Ivers, 2018). As such, promoting foot traffic would endorse the initial retail establishments, enrich public spaces, and bring commercial success (Ivers, 2018). This would be a phased completion over 20 years (Bishop & Williams, 2016), altering the image of King’s Cross by hosting events and activities that would engage users and activate spaces (Ivers, 2018).
Spatial Dynamics and Pedestrian Behaviour
To redefine people’s perception of King’s Cross, required hosting a brand-new masterplan. Thus, employing decisions that shaped the public realm we have today. Firstly, the concurrent misaligned and unproportionate grid layout of the city was inadequate to host a grid-based masterplan for King’s Cross (Bishop & Williams, 2016), in response, the developers adopted a freeform layout influenced by the listed buildings and railway tracks converging into the stations from the north (Bishop & Williams, 2016) (as seen in figure 3), thereby, tightly orienting spaces to the site’s constraints.
Figure 3 - Allies and Morrison, (n.d), Conceptual drawing showing adjoining street grids and geometry of railway sidings.
This approach complements Jan Gehl’s observations in ‘Cities for People.’ The decision to move away from orthogonal grids; aligns with his principles of designing urban spaces based on human movement and senses (Gehl,2010). Achieved by incorporating a boulevard to the north and south of the masterplan, directing users and different intensities of foot traffic towards Granary Square (Bishop & Williams, 2016).
Additionally, the idea of perspectives is explored on how they can influence pedestrian behaviour within the site (Bishop & Williams, 2016). As a result, widening the southern boulevard to manage the foot traffic from the two stations, thus skewing the perceived distance on the approach of the square (Bishop & Williams, 2016). On the contrary, the northern boulevard appears narrower using an elongated public park amongst the converging residential buildings (Bishop & Williams, 2016) thus, extending the views and scale of the space. These techniques, respond to Gehl’s ideas, as he states: “Paths, streets and boulevards are all spaces for linear movement designed on the basis of the human locomotor system” (Gehl, 2010: 46) implying that urban pathways should accommodate human mobility and cater to our sequential and instinctive movement patterns. As such, the design of public spaces at King’s Cross adheres to Gehl’s theory of catering to the visitor’s innate linear movement, as it enhances functionality and ensures Intuitive navigation.
In practice, visiting King’s Cross and registering movement through Gehl’s tracing method (as seen in figure 4) in ‘How to Study Public Life’; refers to drawing lines of movement on a plan for a set time (Gehl, 2013), in this case, from 13:00 to 13:30, during high foot traffic, to observe and map pedestrian behaviour and movement vectors alike (Gehl, 2013). For instance, when transitioning from the fast-paced and narrow city pavements, through King’s Cross Station, and Battle Bridge Place with seating and retail amenities; the turbulent flow of pedestrians began to converge when ascending King’s Boulevard for a more guided and controlled flow.
KEY Foot traffic
4 - Author, (2024), Tracing the foot traffic at King’s Cross between 13:00 - 13:30.
The method revealed that different views and perspectives influence the direction and amount of foot traffic in this area (as seen in figure 5). Namely, on the left of the boulevard is a zone comparable to an in-between space often associated with leftovers from uncoordinated planning (Azhar and Gjerde, 2016). In this case, however, it acts as a transitional space between King’s Boulevard and Pancras Square, a well-crafted square that sits amongst the adjacent commercial buildings. Its humble entry points and narrowed views head towards developed water features, greenery, and seating areas for a calmer atmosphere (as seen in figure 6). This design subtly induces comfortable friction, inviting the user to slow down, contrasting the direct route. This approach influences the choices pedestrians make in realtime, allowing them to decide whether they are willing to take a more aesthetically pleasing, albeit indirect route on their way to the main square or on their return.
Derived from the tracing exercise during the peak of the flow, is that most pedestrians, cyclists, and other mobility users; have preferred King’s Boulevard for its inviting arrangement and widened path (as seen in figure 7). Most notably, however, the narrowed view and the transitional space between the two is enough of a deterrent where the traffic continues to move linearly and does not deviate from their set motion apart from those who intend to, as predicted by Gehl. These patterns are further strengthened by Kevin Lynch’s discussion about path directionality in ‘The Image of the City.’ Eminently, Lynch mentions: “This can be done by a gradient, a regular change in some quality which is cumulative in one direction” (Lynch, 2006: 54). This was observable during the visit as King’s Boulevard has a gradual upward inflexion, naturally inviting the pedestrians towards the square (as seen in figure 7). This can be attributed to our intuitive understanding that inclines lead to destinations, as opposed to descents which in this case would lead visitors away from the leisurely hub, towards the two stations. As such these findings: concur with the principles that well-designed urban spaces orient around natural movement patterns; so, they can offer both direct as well as engaging environments to enrich the user’s urban experience.
Tactical Urbanism in Action: Programmatic Dynamism at King’s Cross
Temporary and tactical urbanism can foster rich and memorable experiences in public spaces; this part of the essay will examine how King’s Cross has employed these techniques and to what extent. The visit to the site revealed an assortment of tactical interventions that actively engaged visitors, fostering new life into the historical fabric of the city. Such interventions educate, intrigue, and entice participatory behaviour among visitors (Stevens and Dovey, 2023). Crucially, the management and Arts Advisory Panel of King’s Cross attentively hosts an array of events that do not feel repetitive throughout the year, these get commissioned as a series of temporary artworks (Bishop & Williams, 2016); on this visit on the 23rd of December 2023, King’s Cross hosted numerous exhibitions and points of attraction catering to a wide audience and range of interests. Several exhibitions namely, the striking Moonwalkers Art Benches exhibition, the Fleeting Forest in Granary Square, and the Canopy Market; are notable examples of programmatic activities that employ temporary and tactical urbanism to enrich the visitor experience.
This emerging concept focuses on having short-term and scalable interventions, that at a low cost can enrich public spaces, and consequently the visitor experience (Stevens and Dovey, 2023). This form of urbanism is used as a means of experimentation, using interim projects, pop-up installations, and community events, in turn fostering community engagement; and rejuvenating underused spaces without permanent implementation (Stevens and Dovey, 2023). At the smallest scale, temporary urbanism alters the image of public spaces while keeping their primary use intact (Stevens and Dovey, 2023). The great advantage of its transient nature is the relaxation of urban planning, as proclaimed by the authors: “The temporariness often applies to urban codes and regulations such that different practices are permitted for a limited period of time...” (Stevens and Dovey, 2023: 19). This should be taken advantage of as it allows for interchangeable ideas to keep spaces interesting and enhance urban productivity, by extracting more value from existing infrastructure to drive engagement, thus, intensifying the spatial vibrancy (as seen in figure 8).
8 - Author, (2024), Temporary and tactical urbanism for interchangeable vibrancy in public spaces (Granary Square).
Similar attributes can be found dispersed around the masterplan of King’s Cross. Looking at the Moonwalkers Art Benches, for instance, their presence is subtle yet evident. Part of a greater immersive exhibition at The Lightroom between the 28th of November and 8th January (King’s Cross, 2022), the concrete benches display restored images from Andy Saunders’ book, ‘Apollo Remastered’ (King’s Cross, 2022); transforming the visitor’s journey into a narrative experience from the very beginning; through Battle Bridge Place, King’s Boulevard, Pancras Square, ultimately to Lewis Cubitt Square the final terminus of this scheme. These strategic pieces of artwork enrich the urban environment whilst taking visitors on a visual and historical voyage enticing curiosity and anticipation of the immersive experience at The Lightroom.
When compared to Stevens and Dovey’s findings The Moonwalkers exhibition at King’s Cross exemplifies how temporary and tactical urbanism infuses experimentation and low-risk innovation into urban spaces (Stevens and Dovey, 2023). The integration of art, for instance, depicts a theme marvelled by many, like the Apollo missions, bringing an abstract concept into a tangible, relatable form seamlessly integrated into the spaces at King’s Cross. The scaled-up imagery is not just an aesthetic addition but also a conversation starter, fostering a deeper connection with the space (as seen in figure 9). This repurposing of a familiar piece of urban furniture is further exasperated by this statement: “Innovation can mean finding a new use for an alreadydeveloped urban form” (Stevens and Dovey, 2023: 176), in this case, extending beyond their conventional use and aesthetic contributions, providing educational value and a prelude to the greater exhibition. This strategic use of urban furniture displays how temporary interventions may enhance user experience and contribute to the economic vitality of the site, by enticing casual admirers and enthusiast participants alike.
The concept of ‘guerilla gardening’ is explored by Stevens and Dovey, where temporary unauthorised interventions are introduced to enhance underutilised public spaces (2023) aesthetically and functionally. Parallels can be derived from the Fleeting Forest art installation, which similarly revitalizes Granary Square. Taking place between 17th November 2023 to 25th February 2024, the installation provides alternative seating and an immersive sense of enclosure from the cold winds from the exposed plaza (as seen in figure 10). This strategic temporary installation explores ways to counter and reinvigorate the underutilised spaces during the colder months; as per the visit, the square experiences short stays, and is predominantly used to transverse to other sheltered spaces. Thus, hinting at the transformative potential of interim projects; evolving into more permanent and formally recognized interventions at King’s Cross, responding to transient climactic conditions.
Figure 10 - Author, (2024), The Fleeting Forest activating the open plaza as a form of guerilla gardening.
The premise of the Fleeting Forest project is to demonstrate the environmental benefits of temporary installations. The use of recovered trees, described as being ‘wonky’ and hard to sell is part of a greater effort at the conservation of Ashdown Forest in Sussex (King’s Cross, 2023). Whilst sequestering carbon during their lifetime, the installation starkly mirrors guerilla gardening as noted by the authors: “Guerrilla gardening involves a range of illicit tactics including the planting of trees and
gardens in public spaces and the grafting of fruit-producing branches onto street trees to render them productive” (Stevens and Dovey, 2023: 176); similarly the project makes an effort in the planting of an array of trees and berries held together by a straw bale and chestnut fencing (King’s Cross, 2022). Introducing this contrasting intervention into the bustling plaza, fosters a natural, and serene environment, providing a space for relaxation, contemplation, and community engagement; as it offers a temporary escape within the cityscape for passing visitors to take in a tranquil experience; masking the noise and sped-up pace of the city (as seen in figure 11). This exemplifies how temporary and tactical urbanism at King’s Cross profoundly impacts the character of space and the behaviour of its users, which is a testament to the increasing acceptance and recognition of their ability to enhance urban life.
Figure 11 - Author, (2024), The Fleeting Forest fostering a tranquil and complentative invironment.
An ulterior version of temporary and tactical urbanism can be seen in the Canopy Market, a key scheduled event that takes place every weekend; epitomizing the essence of community engagement which is central to the experience at King’s Cross. The market provides a place for local artisanal produce, an array of food stands and unique crafts, acting as a vibrant platform for diverse community interactions. Stevens and Dovey outline how temporary and tactical urbanism can involve a range of actors, from community groups to entrepreneurs, contributing to the dynamic use and development of urban spaces (2023). This social blend of various networks and skills; exceeds transactional exchanges; creating a space where
artisans can showcase their skills without the overhead costs of brick-and-mortar stores whilst being given direct feedback and interest from the community and distant visitors. This aligns with the notion that temporary and tactical urbanism facilitates engagement and opportunities for a diverse range of individuals and groups, which leads to the further enrichment of social roles and professional incubation for start-up ventures (Stevens and Dovey, 2023).
In such socially vibrant market settings, the authors claim that visitors and vendors alike become ‘prosumers’ referring to their active participation in both the creation and experience of the market space (Stevens and Dovey, 2023). These dynamics morph the Canopy Market into more than a shopping venue; becoming a pulsating example of co-created urban space, where boundaries between production and consumption blur into the vitality of the space (as seen in figure 12). While expansion in community engagement may offer valuable opportunities, they do raise questions about such public spaces as Stevens and Dovey caution: “Expansions of community engagement are not always transparent or socially equitable” (2023: 39). In this case, one might question the market’s interest in serving the community’s wants, or perhaps elements of programmatic commercialisation being masked as communal value. As such, the Canopy Market’s role in King’s Cross represents both the potential and challenges of tactical and temporary urbanism in fostering community engagement among urban spaces.
Evaluating User Experience and Urban Vitality at King’s Cross
To comprehensively assess the extent to which the visitors’ experience is looked after and its contribution to the urban vitality of King’s Cross; Vikas Mehta’s public space index metrics have been employed to evaluate the success of open spaces, streets, plazas, and urban parks, as well as the artefacts within the mixed-use development. Mehta refers to the spaces he evaluates in his journal as those accessible and used by the public, stating his criteria: “Public space that generates public use and active or passive social behaviour… Where people are subject to the general regulations that govern the use of the space” (Mehta, 2014: 54). Setting frameworks is particularly pertinent as Mehta’s methodology provides a structured approach in studying the relationship between the qualities of public space and the subsequent perceived vitality. The approach to categorize and score spaces; offers an objective lens through which we can assess the success and vibrancy of King’s Cross by conducting quantitative and qualitative evaluation, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of its role in shaping urban experiences.
Mehta’s first dimension of inclusiveness suggests that public space is only public through appropriation and representation of different groups of people in the public realm (Mehta, 2014). At King’s Cross, these metrics are robustly evidenced (as seen in table 1). The variety of activities, as the metric looking at the imminent perception of the public to partake in the hosted activities; scores highly, reflects the diverse attractions that cater to different ages (as seen in table 1). For instance, the Club Curling under Coal Drops Yard; is considered a family event by Questionnaire Respondent 5; as it appeals to all ages, resonating with Mehta’s idea that public spaces should evolve to accommodate the activities and behaviours of their users (as seen in 13); adding to the vibrancy of the realm as it activates and invigorates the space with joy, competitiveness and familyfriendly play. Interactive installations that attract children’s engagement further endorse this notion, aligning with the concept that public space is ‘flexible and ambiguous’, adaptable to the needs of its users as proclaimed by Loukaitou-Sideris and Ehrenfeucth (Mehta, 2014); where play is an important part of urban vitality (as seen in figure 14). However, the feedback from respondent 5 suggests that King’s Cross could benefit from more child-friendly and designated playgrounds, for further inclusivity and vitality.
Aspect of public space Variables/metrics
Inclusiveness
public space:lockable gates, fences, etc.
Table 1
Figure 14 - Author, (2024), Play in the public realm of King’s Cross
Under Mehta’s dimensions, ‘Meaningful Activities’ are identified as pivotal elements that contribute to placing meaning and identity in public spaces (Mehta, 2014). Emphasizing that spaces gain significance upon resonating with visitors’ interests, driving participation and interactions with others, thereby sparking vitality. By looking at Mehta’s metrics (as seen in table 2) a correlation appears in the form of assessing the functionality and versatility of the space. As such, the spaces’ ability to meet basic and niche needs is assessed. Predominantly visitors are directed towards the retail and entertainment hub, which allows for community gatherings and social expression encapsulating Oldenburg’s concept of ‘third places’ – informal, communal spaces essential for social life (Mehta, 2014). These are seamlessly embedded into King’s Cross catering to our needs to interact with new stimuli; and sustain ourselves with food options around the edges, and navigable spatial layouts that contribute to overall usefulness and sociability. This responds to Mehta’s idea of meaningful public spaces having utilitarian purposes; simultaneously fostering a sense of place and community attachment. Each visit to King’s Cross thus becomes familiarised, valuing the realm where activities deeply resonate with and enrich visitors’ experience.
Table 2
Perceived safety is another crucial dimension of public spaces, Mehta notably states: “A feeling of safety may be achieved simply by the constant presence of people” (Mehta, 2014: 60) referring to the intrinsic sense of security people possess when assessing spaces. This behaviour is observed at King’s Cross with its consistent occupancy, using Jan Gehl’s ‘mapping’ methodology (as seen in figure 15). This method revealed the intensifying of public spaces and the eventual plateau towards the evening, driven by the collective presence of people in the welcoming realm. According to a security worker at King’s Cross safety is looked after as much as the activities (Questionnaire Respondent 1), this is reflected in the site’s high score in surveillance, as noted in table 3. An aspect however that can be improved upon is the after-dark lighting. Currently, the spaces around King’s Cross predominantly use accent lighting, although aesthetically pleasing, it can be perceived as insufficient for safety parameters. This is suggested as feedback when asked about aspects to improve upon by (Questionnaire Respondent 1) indicating that more streetlights could alleviate some dark spaces, hence deserving a lower score in Mehta’s metrics for lighting and perceptual safety, pointing to an area the spaces at King’s Cross could benefit from. Aspect of public space
Mapping Density 1:5000 at A4
Figure 15 - Author, (2024), Mapping exercise - Morning, afternoon and evening at King’s Cross in relation to percieved safety.
Aspect of public space
Variables/metrics
Safety Visual and physical connection and openness to adjacent street/s or spaces
Perceived safety from presence of surveillance cameras, security guards, guides, ushers, etc. providing safety
= Very much provide a sense of safety
some sense of safety
Table 3
Urban comfort, a fourth dimension in Mehta’s framework, intertwines with safety, microclimate and physical conditions which contribute towards pleasantry in public spaces (Mehta, 2014). Mehta focuses on the physical characteristics of space which King’s Cross excels at, as evidenced by the comfort attributes such as seating, artefacts, shelter, and perceived maintenance (as seen in table 4). The seating particularly; is present in various forms allowing for different behaviours to take place; For instance, the granite benches in Granary Square allow parents to rest and look at the fountains where children play (as seen in figure 16), other benches merge into the landscaping using warmer materials, complimenting the natural surroundings, which encourage relaxation and contemplation (as seen in figure 17), with
anthropometrics in mind, ledges throughout King’s Cross adjacent to markets and waterbodies allow for similar behaviours like eating, resting, and socialisation (as seen in figure 18). This strategy not only meets basic comfort needs but also enhances the user experience by allowing versatility and diverse stationary pockets. Implementing these elements; encourages longer stays which vitalises King’s Cross with dynamic interactions and a vibrant atmosphere; this is in line with Mehta’s assertion that spaces should cater to both physical comfort and social behaviours (Mehta, 2014), which is vividly exemplified here.
Table 4
Figure 18 - Author, (2024), The use of ledges and their contribution to comfort. The last dimension of pleasurability; explores the visual and sensory complexity in the public realm that may contribute to perceived attractiveness (Mehta, 2014). King’s Cross makes a great effort with its multiple temporary art installations that
invigorate public spaces, adding to the spatial quality and imageability defined by Lynch as the “quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer” (Lynch, 2006: 9) referring to the idea of having memorable junctures that allow one to associate space with location and emotions perceived. Spaces that achieve this are highly pleasurable, which is how King’s Cross successfully garners
from the public through temporary and tactical urbanism providing the user with a memorable experience catering to their interests (as seen in table 5). By serving as catalysts for public engagement, the installations directly contribute to urban vitality by providing complex and dynamic liveliness in King’s Cross, making it a continuously engaging urban environment.
for detached plaza, square, park
Table 5
Ultimately when plotting the public space index data on a radar chart as per Mehta’s method (as seen in figure 19); it can be determined that the King’s Cross redevelopment has achieved high vitality among the five dimensions. Scoring the highest in pleasurability at 93.3% showcasing how the multitude of temporary and tactical installations, and a focus on the events in the public realm have fostered a tapestry of experiences, which in conjunction with human-centric design, directly translates to the cultivation of thriving public spaces at King’s Cross.
PSI (%): Total score
Inclusiveness: (23.6/27.6)x 100 = 85.5%
Meaningful activities: (25/30)x 100 = 83.3%
Comfort: (26/30)x 100 = 86.7%
Safety: (25/30)x 100 = 83.3%
Figure 19 - Author, (2024) Radar chart - plotting Public Space Index (PSI) results for King’s Cross.
Conclusion
The redevelopment of King’s Cross has demonstrated the potency of human-centric design and its role in rejuvenating once dilapidated urban spaces. The profound influence of diverse programming among flexible open spaces catering to different interests is a successful attribute of the development that should stand as a precedent for others to employ. Accompanied by the decision to move away from the orthogonal layout of the surrounding city, thus sprung the fluid nature of the masterplan and the subsequent characteristics of public spaces in King’s Cross. These, in turn, act as canvases accommodating a spectrum of human behaviours, interactions and movement habits; echoing Jan Gehl’s ethos, which not only improved upon the pedestrian flow but also provided means to marry the overall experience with functionality and visual appeal.
This led to, the narrative of King’s Cross morphing with its temporary and tactical urbanistic traits. These, have been integral to the redevelopment, as hosting temporary interventions, art pieces, marketplaces, and community events have revitalised the once dormant land into a vibrant tapestry of rich communal gatherings. Hence, these initiatives go beyond the beautification of the landscape, encouraging the adaptation of new ideas in an ever-evolving public realm which invigorates the narrative by adapting to the evolving social needs; keeping spaces stimulating and tactile for longer. As such, establishing King’s Cross as a cultural and social nexus, inviting a diverse array of visitors, and fostering strong community ties.
These relations were measured using Vikas Mehta’s public space index; revealing an evident correlation between theory and recorded data across the five dimensions of public space; evidencing that King’s Cross is infused with qualities fostering memorable experiences that contribute to the perception of a strong urban vitality. Concerning this, the findings can be further refined by conducting this research at other times of the year when the climate is more inviting and displays an even richer relationship between the users and the public realm.
Finally, the redevelopment of King’s Cross conveys the importance of temporary and programmatic diversity in the public realm; exemplifying how the heightened human-centric approach to design, led to a vibrantly crafted and inclusive social epicentre bringing more life into the city. As such, this evolution brought commercial growth to the area; whilst demonstrating how public spaces can adapt to the nuanced needs and interests of people. In summary, King’s Cross can be used as a precedent for urban regeneration, as it reveals a strategic approach to
conceptualization; and the concurrent management of public spaces. Ultimately, this focus on enhancing users’ sensory engagement by nurturing new ideas and pocketed activities dispersed around the masterplan, and as per the observations during the site visit; King’s Cross demonstrates a great understanding of fostering a rich vitality in its public realm (as seen in figure 20).
Figures
Figure 1 - Dixon, E. H (1837), King’s Cross, London: the Great Dust-Heap, next to Battle Bridge and the Smallpox Hospital. [Watercolour painting] Available at: https://wellcomecollection. org/works/ssu37wcd/items [Accessed 28 December 2023].
Figure 2 - Charles Booth, (1898–99), Map of Poverty in London housing shaded dark blue and black was occupied by the vicious and semi-criminal’ classes. Planning, politics and city-making : a case study of King’s Cross. London: RIBA Publishing.
Figure 3 - Allies and Morrison, (n.d), Conceptual drawing showing adjoining street grids and geometry of railway sidings. Planning, politics and city-making : a case study of King’s Cross. London: RIBA Publishing.
Figure 4 - Author (2024), Tracing the foot traffic at King’s Cross between 13:00 - 13:30. Available at: in this document [12/01/2024]
Figure 5 - Author (2024), Views and perspectives collage of King’s Boulevard in relation to foot traffic. Available at: in this document [12/01/2024]
Figure 6 - Author (2024), St Pancras Square collage. Available at: in this document [12/01/2024]
Figure 7 - Author (2024), Sense of cumulative and gradient direction on King’s Boulevard. Available at: in this document [12/01/2024]
Figure 8 - Author (2024), Temporary and tactical urbanism for interchangeable vibrancy in public spaces (Granary Square). Available at: in this document [13/01/2024]
Figure 9 - Author (2024), Moonwalkers Art Exhibition fostering engagement. Available at: in this document [13/01/2024]
Figure 10 - Author, (2024), The Fleeting Forest activating the open plaza as a form of guerilla gardening. Available at: in this document [13/01/2024]
Figure 11 - Author (2024), The Fleeting Forest fostering a tranquil and complentative invironment. Available at: in this document [13/01/2024]
Figure 12 - Author (2024), The Canopy Market and co-created urban. Available at: in this document [13/01/2024]
Figure 13 - Author, (2024), Club curling event under the Coal Drops Yard. Available at: in this document [13/01/2024]
Figure 14 - Author (2024), Play in the public realm of King’s Cross. Available at: in this document [13/01/2024]
Figure 15 - Author, (2024), Mapping exercise - Morning, afternoon and evening at King’s Cross in relation to percieved safety. Available at: in this document [13/01/2024]
Figure 16 - Author (2024), Figure 16 - Author, (2024), Granary Square seating and fountains play. Available at: in this document [13/01/2024]
Figure 17 - Author, (2024), Complentative seating throughout King’s Cross. [14/01/2024]
Figure 18 - Author, (2024), The use of ledges and their contribution to comfort. Available at: in this document [14/01/2024]
Figure 19 - Author, (2024) Radar chart - plotting Public Space Index (PSI) results for King’s Cross. Available at: in this document [12/01/2024]
Figure 20 - Author, (2024) The rich urban vitality of King’s Cross. Available at: in this document [14/01/2024]
References
Azhar, J. and Gjerde, M. (2016) Re-Thinking the role of Urban In-Between Spaces. [online] pp.279–288. Available at: https:// archscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/29-1179-279-288.pdf [Accessed 28 December 2023].
Bishop, P. & Williams, L. (2016) Planning, politics and citymaking : a case study of King’s Cross. London: RIBA Publishing.
Gehl, J. & Svarre, B. (2013) How to Study Public Life. [Online]. Washington, DC: Birkhäuser Boston.
Gehl, J. (2010) Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ivers, B. C. (2018) ‘THE REDEVELOPMENT OF KING’S CROSS, LONDON’, in Staging Urban Landscapes. [Online]. Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. pp. 271–274.
Lynch, K. (2006) The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass. ; MIT.
Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating Public Space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), pp.53–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.201 3.854698.
Stevens, Q. and Dovey, K. (2023) Temporary and tactical urbanism : (Re)assembling urban space. [Online]. New York, NY ; Routledge.
The London Museum (2022). Charles Booth’s poverty map at Museum of London. [online] www.youtube.com. Available at: https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHMrgunJAQo&t=92s [Accessed 29 December 2023].
Bibliography
Adelfio, M., Hamiduddin, I. and Miedema, E. (2020). London’s King’s Cross redevelopment: a compact, resource efficient and ‘liveable’ global city model for an era of climate emergency?. Urban Research & Practice, 14(2), pp.1–21. doi:https://doi.org/10 .1080/17535069.2019.1710860.
Azhar, J. and Gjerde, M. (2016). Re-Thinking the role of Urban In-Between Spaces. [online] pp.279–288. Available at: https:// archscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/29-1179-279-288.pdf [Accessed 28 December 2023].
Bishop, P. & Williams, L. (2016) Planning, politics and citymaking : a case study of King’s Cross. London: RIBA Publishing.
Brenner, D. (2014). King’s cross railway lands: A ‘good argument’ for change?. Google.com, [online] 171(1474-3280). Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/development/sites/bartlett/files/ migrated-files/WP171_0.pdf [Accessed 28 December 2023].
Dobbins, M. & Dobbins (2009) ‘Urban Design and People’, in Urban Design and People. United States: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Ivers, B. C. (2018) ‘THE REDEVELOPMENT OF KING’S CROSS, LONDON’, in Staging Urban Landscapes. [Online]. Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. pp. 271–274.
Gehl, J. & Svarre, B. (2013) How to Study Public Life. [Online]. Washington, DC: Birkhäuser Boston.
Gehl, J. (2010) Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Lynch, K. (2006) The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass. ; MIT.
Mehta, V. (2014) Evaluating Public Space. Journal of urban design. [Online] 19 (1), 53–88.
Museum of London. (2022). Mapping wealth & poverty in Victorian London. [online] Available at: https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/ discover/mapping-wealth-poverty-london-charles-booths-poverty-map [Accessed 29 December 2023].
Related Argent. (n.d.). King’s Cross redevelopment - Argent. [online] Available at: https://argentllp.co.uk/places/kings-cross [Accessed 28 December 2023].
Stevens, Q. and Dovey, K. (2023) Temporary and tactical urbanism : (Re)assembling urban space. [Online]. New York, NY ; Routledge.
The London Museum (2022). Charles Booth’s poverty map at Museum of London. [online] www.youtube.com. Available at: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=YHMrgunJAQo&t=92s [Accessed 29 December 2023].
Whyte, W. Hollingsworth. (2004) The social life of small urban spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.
Whyte, W. Hollingsworth (1980). City Spaces, Human Places | Full Documentary | NOVA | PBS - video Dailymotion. [online] Dailymotion. Available at: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/ x8mpdo3 [Accessed 28 December 2023].
Questionnaire Respondent 1
Questionnaire Respondent 2
Questionnaire Respondent 3
Questionnaire Respondent 4
Questionnaire Respondent 5
