Questions to think about for the meeting

Please bring along any images of ideas that you think represents what you would like to see on the site.

Questions to think about:

1. BUILDINGS
o Where could new buildings go?
o What scale and height should the new buildings be?
o If taller than the Colonies, please show where this would be
o What materials should be considered?

2. MOVEMENT
o How should vehicles get in and out of the site?
o How should people (pedestrians and cyclists) get in and out?
o Where could residents and visitors park?
o Do you have any ideas about alternatives such as car sharing?

3. USES AND ACTIVITY
o What sort of housing would you like to see?
o How would students best be accomodated?
o What other things could happen on the site?
o Do you think there could be anything other than housing on the site?

4. OPEN SPACE
o Where could open space be provided in the development?
o How could open space connect to other open areas?
o What sort of planting or landscaping could there be?
o How do you think the scheme could be sustainable or eco-friendly?

Next public meeting Thursday 4/3/2010

You are invited to St Michael’s Church Hall, Slateford Road on Thursday 4th March 2010 at 7.30pm for a design meeting for the community contra-plan for the site of the old biscuit factory.

In this 2-hour meeting we will build on comments given by all the participants at our successful ideas session on 12th January. If you weren't able to make it, see www.flowercolonies.org.uk for more about this fun, interactive meeting - we want to keep up the positive energy and take it another stage further with your help on 4th March.


Your comments have helped our experts, architect Duncan Whatmore, urban designer Ross McEwan and public artist Shaeron Averbuch to draw up guidelines that will help us create a real plan for the future. We shall be looking at images, sketching on scaled drawings and talking or writing creatively to firm up a community-led alternative plan for the factory site and part of the railway path behind.


If you plan to come, you may want to bring along any images of buildings or open spaces that you have seen. This will help us to define four conceptual plans that consider the following independently:
1) buildings 2) movement 3) uses and activities and 4) open space.


For each of these areas, there are a small number of questions that may give you some ideas as to what will be expected. They are available on the website under the contra-plan section. Any thoughts in advance will help to make this meeting really productive.


We are also interested in any off-the-wall ideas and temporary uses of the space while its future is decided.

Preparation for the design meeting

On February 14th, we met at the JUMP headquarter to discuss how the community design meeting could best work.

The purpose of the design meeting will be to discuss what we would like to see on the site. Based on the outcome of the Gallery of Ideas, Shaeron, Ross and Duncan came up with a number of questions grouped in four areas which will form the basis for the discussion: Buildings (where should they go? What scale and height?), Movement (vehicle and pedestrian access to the site, parking provisions, etc), Uses and Activity (What sort of housing? What other things could happen on the site? Should there be anything other than housing on the site?) Open Space (Where and how should open space be incorporated? How could this open space be connected to other open areas?)

We will provide a number of images of a wide variety of buildings and developments. The idea is not to find THE image of what the development should look like. But they will help everybody to show what they like and explain why.

In addition to this, there will be large plans of the development area to give an overview of the area but also to draw and scribble on. At the end of the workshop, Duncan, Ross and Shaeron but also we as the Flower Colonies community will hopefully have a clearer idea what we want for the site. So come along, make your voice and vision heard and make the next workshop a success!

Other developments

A few articles about other developments that show that development does not necessarily have to result in characterless boxes.

http://www.buildingforlife.org/case-studies/norfolk-park/introduction
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1550902/?UserKey&UserKey=


And something about the idea of "urban villages"

http://www.ice.org.uk/rtfpdf/BS-Urban%20Villages.pdf
http://www.bilstonurbanvillage.co.uk/what_is.php

Outcome from the public meeting from the 12th of January - Design principles developed by Duncan, Ross, and Shaeron

In order to move towards a design solution that represents the community’s wishes, it is desirable to reflect on the suggestions made at the January 2010 public meeting.It is suggested that the next steps take the following sequence:

• Review of Gallery of Ideas People’s Outcomes to establish key issues
• Organise and consolidate issues into Design Principles (design brief)
• Application of principles to site and evolution of Concept Design (options)
• Three-dimensional contraplan proposal

Each step in the development of principles, brief, concept and proposals needs to ensure that the community’s wishes and reaction are accommodated, so that the final outcomes can be embraced as representing the preferred development pattern. This can also be ‘reality checked’ to anticipate any response from the Council, other interested parties, and the developer.

These are intended to reflect the residents’ wishes for the design of the development. These do not incorporate other strategies, including ideas for acquiring an interest in the site, lobbying or publicity, which are areas outside the scope of the design.

There appear to be a number of categories that can be extracted from the list of issues, and to ensure that a broad range of principles are addressed, these have been assembled to reflect the concerns raised at the January public meeting. There are many detailed comments that do not necessarily fall into these categories, and some issues seem to require to be transferred from one category to another; others entail opposing views, although it may be possible for the development to cater for a range of approaches that provide choice. Issues that do not appear in detail in the consolidated principles will be retained for use as part of a checklist during the formulation of more detailed proposals.

It is intended that these principles can be reviewed and modified to form the basis of a development brief for the contraplan. 10 is always a convenient number but the issues should not be shoehorned into this number if it needs to be larger or smaller.

The principal issue types can be summarized as encompassing:

• Built Form
• Movement
• Use and Activity
• Open Space
• Sustainability

The hierarchy of these issues can also be discussed and modified as required.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

1. The development should reflect the existing residential buildings in scale and height and should provide variety and interest, as well as reflecting its specific context, and may propose innovative solutions to address parking and level change issues.
   
2. Materials should be of high quality and relevant for their location, with stone/masonry construction and punched windows being considered, as well as appropriate contemporary design approaches and materials where these assist the overall composition.
3. Some re-use of the existing biscuit factory should be reviewed as an option, although this will be likely to require modification to ensure compatibility of use and scale.
   
4. Access to the site needs to be able to achieved without compromising the existing circulation arrangement, although connections between the existing terraces and between the development and the railway route should be considered.
5. Parking will not always be accommodated immediately next to houses and open spaces to ensure the availability of vehicle-free areas, and could be treated in different ways throughout the site to provide a range of provision according to location.
6. A range of accommodation types, including family homes, should be considered (as well as affordable housing), with the emphasis on longer-term residency; student accommodation, if present, should be dispersed.
7. Other complementary secondary uses within the site may be proposed, which could include café, retail, food, gallery/office use, sheltered accommodation.
8. There should be a legible and accessible flow of green public and private spaces and gardens which can be used by the community, that reflects the scale and orientation of their surroundings, and provides a neighbourhood asset to complement the existing and new homes and any ancillary uses.
9. Spaces can be enhanced by the provision of mature or dense planting in areas, other areas given over to a flexibility of use for different activities and events, and lighting and artwork could be used to improve security, interest and legibility of routes, which also need to be considered in the context of their built form edges.
10. A sustainable approach should inform every aspect of the development, from orientation, energy consumption (before, during and after construction), local produce initiatives including livestock and allotments, encouraging accessible public transport and bicycle use, pooled cars, and facilitating community initiatives.

More about Shaeron Averbuch and Ross McEwan

Shaeron and Ross have spent a lot of time and effort in getting the contra plan off the ground.

Shaeron Averbuch and Ross McEwan are both partners in AiA Art in Architecture, a design practice specialising in Place-making and Arts Led Regeneration.

Shaeron Averbuch, MA Art in Architecture, is a practicing artist specialising in community arts projects and public art. Shaeron is an experienced Lead Artist with an interest urban regeneration and Cultural Planning.

Ross McEwan is experienced in the teaching and practice of interior design, architectural design and urban design.
www.artinarchitecture.co.uk
www.ecossedoc.eu

Ross McEwan is currently Chair of JUMP (Joined Up Master Planning) the group that was asked by Flower Colonies residents to get involved with the communities particular development issue

Shaeron Averbuch is currently secretary of JUMP (Joined Up Master Planning).
www.jumpleith.co.uk

JUMP is an open interactive group. Membership is welcoming to all who share an interest and concern in regard to their environment and who wish to influence change on the way individuals and communities can effectively challenge planning permissions in relation to developments they feel are insensitive to the surrounding physical quality of their urban environment. We wish to challenge developer led regeneration in favour of a community led initiatives and solutions that may offer a contra solutions of matched economic return for the investor.
JUMP members must be proactive and must accept and support the inevitable development and regeneration of any given site. However, members can justifiably question the merits of proposals and develop contra plans to convey alternative solutions that would be more widely welcomed by the community and stakeholders.
JUMP Group meetings are approximately once a month and membership is currently free with members joining up by forwarding their email, name and contact details to info@jumpleith.co.uk

(Please note website details of a JUMP initiated project named Granton sur Mer will have a new website link to this evolving community project in the next couple of weeks)

Flower Colonies Contra-Plan

Creating a safer and friendly neighbourhood, with a strong sense of community for the Flower Colonies Area depends on a positive attitude and the running of activities that represent as wide an audience as possible. This will develop the area as an even better place to be. In the case of the planned development of the old biscuit factory, which lies right at the heart of the area, we believe the design should consider three values:

• the city’s need for housing,
  
• the need for a viable business model for its owners, and
  
• the needs and attitudes of local people.
  

The developer’s architect has not involved any local consultation, and we have objected strongly to their design through the official channels, and will continue to do so (read more about our objections here).


Positive action
But to demonstrate that local residents are in favour of development, in moving forward to satisfy all parties, we have begun a positive set of activities to produce our own design. We are confident that we can do a better job and have started a programme of community-led activities. The core of this is at present is series of friendly, fun and facilitated public meetings with as many local residents as possible, in co-operation with skilled advisers in architecture and urban planning.


Our last activities


At the first facilitated meeting on the 12th January, we collected ideas from over 36 participants who shared 189 ideas in a fun, interactive and very positive way. Our architectural advisers took away a whole bundle of post-it notes and posters and will return with grouped themes at the next meeting.



History of the contra-plan
January 2010 – First public meeting, second public meeting, website established (http://www.flowercolonies.org.uk/)
December 2009 – Contra-plan sub-group set up under the guidance of the committee


Our advisers
Duncan Whatmore – Architect and master urban designer www.duncanwhatmore.com
Ross McEwan – Urban design consultant www.jumpleith.co.uk
Shaeron Averbuch – Public artist www.artinarchitecture.co.uk