reclaiming regeneration

7/31/2019 Reclaiming Regeneration

1/76

RECLAIMINGREGENERATION

REPORT AND DESIGN RESPONSE I ELEPHANT AND CASTLE


2/76

Elephant and Castle I Report2

Elephant and Castle / Group 1 / Stage 2

Hanna Hilbrant, Chris Montgomery, Laura Pinzon, Ariel Shepherd, Anna Subirats

Lisa Hanking,

March 2012


3/76

3

-

-

-

-

Acknowledgements


4/76



5/76

5

Executive summary -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Findings

-

-

-

-

-

Principles and Aims

-

-

-

Design Responses

-

-

-

-

-


6/76



7/76

7

Table of contents

2. Context

3. Analysis

5. Vision and Principles I 37

6. Design response

7. Conclusion I 67


8/76


-


9/76

9

1. Introduction

-

-

-

-

-

-

- -


10/76



11/76

11

2. Context

Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area

-

-

Mapping the process

-

-

-

-

-

Being In limbo -

-


12/76


-

-

-

-

-

-

-


13/76

13

Mapping the actors

-

-

-

-

GLOBAL

LOCAL

PUBLICPRIVATE

Local communitySouthwark

Council

Lend Lease

London Residents

Amenity

networkHeygate

residents

Local

buisnesses

Chains

Universities

Artists/Workshops

Soundings

Practice

of dissent

Church

Mayor of

London


14/76



15/76

15

3. Analysis

-

-

Economy

-

-

-

-

-


16/76


Housing

-

-

-


17/76

17

-

-

-

-

-


18/76


-

-

-

-

-

-

Public space/Voids

-

-

-

-


19/76

19

-

-

-

-

-


20/76


-

-

- -

-


21/76

21

-

-

3


22/76


Community culture

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


23/76

23

-

-

-


24/76



25/76

Southwark Council

Local Community

London Residents

WEAKNESS

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

STRENGTH

provisionsstructure usescharacter character provisions

LOCAL ECONOMY

economiceconomic

Private Developers

void spaces used for

experimentation

Under performing as a mall:

bad planning

Space of identity, solidarity

and encounter for

minorities and low income

groups.

large investment from

developers, tari to

public infrastructure

under representation

of comparison goodsaesthetics and quality

of building grim

Largest Latin-American economic hub,

specialist commodities

no night time activities

increase diversity of products

possibly displace ethnic retail

VACANCY

high number of

independent stores

plans for redevelopment unknown,

shop owners have insecure future

splits transport

infrastructure

no night time activity;

preception of insecurity at night

high representation

of convenience good

REDEVELOPMENT

disuse

WALWORTH ROADSHOPPING MALL


26/76

Conict

Conict

5. E&C AS AN AMBIGUOUSLY PERCEIVED SPACE

4. E&C AS A VALUABLE GREEN SPACE

3. E&C WIDELY CONNECTED BUT LOCALLY FRAGMENTED SPACE

2. E&C AS AN ACTIVE BUT FRAGILE COMMUNITY

1. E&C AS AN INCLUSIVE SPACE

HEYGATE

structurecharacter

split levels, buildings turned inwards:

children safe to appropriate

infamous, historical identity

progressive for the time,

unique, historical

structural integrity(?)

of building, allows for re-appropriation

MONOLITHIC ISOLATION

HOUSING

character marketprovisions

high percentage of

comparatively

aordable housing

private investment brings

in money for public

redevelopment

higher income

renters and buyers students

54% of housing socially rented,

little tax money to work with

high percentage ofstudent accomodation

likely to be a very fast

increase in land market

transient residents

threatens cohesive community

Only 12% ownership, rise in property values

will mean even Aordable housing is below

most local peoples means and result in

expulsion from the area

25% aordable housing@ 80% 400,000 = 360,000Can anyone eligible for housing subsidies can aord 360,000?

Any preference for people from the area?

LOW INCOME GROUPS OA REDEVELOPMENTSTUDENTS

building turned inwards,

act(s) to ghettoizearea (still) heavily stigmatized

by degeneration and crime of the past

character provisions

aytime streetlife liveliness

large variety of fresh produce

homogeneity of goods

EAST STREET


27/76

Conict

Conict

Conict

5. E&C AS AN AMBIGUOUSLY PERCEIVED SPACE

4. E&C AS VALUABLE GREEN SPACE

3. E&C WIDELY CONNECTED BUT LOCALLY FRAGMENTED SPACE

2. E&C AS AN ACTIVE BUT FRAGILE COMMUNITY

1. E&C AS AN INCLUSIVE SPACE

INFRASTRUCTURE

/MOVEMENT

privatization,

monopoly of infrastructure by car

Major roads oer easy access by car

safety issue for

pedestrians and cycli

fragmentation of space due to massive Modernist

mono-functional transport infrastructure

character

MAJOR ROADS ROUNDABOUT

OPEN SPACES

provisions usescharacter

appropriation, insurgent activities,

practices of dissent

Unused fenced o corridoors

are transient spaces produce insecurity

large amount of unlandscaped open spaces

low quality and articulation

(lack of maintenance, cleanliness)

open spaces to be privately controlled

lack of permeability between

private and public,

monofunctional use of open

spaces inaccessibility/fragmentation

PUBLIC SPACES VOID SPACES

provisions uses scale and devlopment

fear of eviction/expulsionsplits retail pockets

(Mall from Walworth road)

Urban forest of old/unique trees

delayed redevelopment has

allowed for multiple uses,

practices of dissent and

socio-cultural experimentation:

Large land area, with high value presents

a large economic opportunity

URBAN FOREST DEMOLITION

Trees restrict future development massing

EXPANSIVE


28/76

24hour bus service, train and tube

congestion and crowding, with

increased population

ovisions uses

MAJOR TRANSPORT HUB

not easy to use, fragmented, hidden

COMMUNITY AND CULTURE

CROSSWAY CHURCH & THE CENTRE IN RODNEY PLACE THE CONSULTATION HUB OA REDEVELOPMENT

Centre oer space of well being, meeting

place of Elephant & Ammenity Network

not clear where new community

centers will be after demolition

hosts the formal participatory process carry out by the developers,

manifests public-private sector partnerships and the

increasing political necessity of demonstrating consensus

community initiatives) reveal a local

dissensus surrounding the regeneration

structure usescharacter

High unemployment

Insurgent cultural uses

Lack of public space cultural investment

Inclusive space for

minorities and low

income groups

Active community

High transient population

Displacement/broken community

Obsolecence of community spaces

High crime rates


29/76

25


30/76


-

Analytic Dimensions


31/76

27


32/76


-


33/76

29

4. Redevelopement

through Lend Lease -

Threat to E&C

-

-

-

-

Castle

-

-

-

-

-


34/76


-

-

-

-

-

-

-


35/76

31

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Embodied Energy

-

-

-

-


36/76


-

-

-

-

-

-


37/76

33

Proposed Masterplan

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Amount of affordable and social housing.. .. .. .b

Range of house types ....................................b

Adequate community / Activity space ... ... ... ..b

Lack of 'place' & cohesion of language .. ... ...b

Phasing ................................ ................... .....b

Parking ............. .................... ................... ....b

Courtyard accessibility ................................b

Density .......................... .................... ..........b

Building heights ..........................................b

Access and connectivity ....... ..... .... ..... ..... ...b

Amount of 'open' / 'public' space ..................b

Retention of existing trees .............................

Piecemeal

Measures Taken

Fully

Addressed


38/76


-


39/76

35

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5. Vision and Principles

$

X

$


40/76

Inclusiveness


Sustainability

-

-

-

Sustainability

-

X


41/76

37

-

-

-

-

-


42/76

Way of Life and Identity


-

-


43/76

The Council`s Themes vs. Design Interventions -

39


44/76



45/76

41

6. Design Response

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Elephant and

castle

-

-


46/76


Table of contents

1. Opportunity Area

Shopping Centre


47/76

43

1.2. Connecting andRemoving Barriers

-

-

-

-

1. Opportunity Area


48/76


-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


49/76

45

X$


50/76


1.2 Alternative proposals for

OA Development sites

Studio Elephant (arts space)/ Cool

-

-

CRISP (Community Recycling in South

-

-

X$


51/76

47


52/76


-

-

-

Urban Gardening Club building

-

Strategic housing

-

-


53/76

49

X$


54/76


2.1 Comparison of housing

estate redevelopments

Housing Cooperatives

Area based initiatives

HOUSING

STATE IN NORWAY

Positives

characteristics

Preservation & Maintenance

- A mixed housing stock

- High ownership rate (low

proportion of public housing)

- Low unemployment rate.

- Council tenants become owners

who share responsibilities

- The initiatives are non profit

making and are solely focused on

the wellbeing of the local residents.

- High commitment of central

governmen , strong community

organization and long life

expectancy.

-Fairly satisfactory conditions,

physical and social.

RedevelopmentApproach/

MainActors

Negatives

characteristics

- Large housing states are generally

stigmatized.

- A highly successful welfare system.

AMENITY

NETWORK

Led by the

community

-Signs of gentrification, well

educated couples arriving to the

area.

Other

characteristics

- Critical engagement, and active

participation.

- Interim activities, providing a

new temporal realm of theplace.

- Incapable of changing wider

structures of power.

- Able to participate, but unable to

transform the bases of the

redevelopment plan.

Part demolished/

refurbished


55/76

51

REDEVELOPMENT

PLAN

Lend Lease

PARK HILLS &

BRUNWISK CENTRE

REDEVELOPMENT

Private Developers

Renovation and ConversionDemolish and start again

- Keeps record of the Citys history,

looking for solutions within the

existing urban fabric.

-

Able to provide affordable housingsolutions.

- Creates housing solutions for fist-

time buyers.

Pedestrian centre development.

It is the economic catalyst for the

egeneration of the whole area,

providing the resources to improvenfrastructure.

tart from scratch to erase the

emory of the city.

Misconception of the term

ustainability

revious tenants evicted.

Gentrification. The focus on foreign

vestment doesnt ease

e local housing shortage.

he regeneration is solely based on

ofit

conic buildings desirable by

reign capital.

ollows London Global City vision.

- Previous tenants evicted.

- It is difficult to foresee If the outcome

would be negative or positive.

- Regeneration is based on profit

- Incorporate the aesthetics

demanded by a specific market.

-Follows the trend of reusing structures

and marketing a new lifestyle.

COIN STREET

COMMUNITY

BUILDERS

- Provision of low income housing

solutions by way of a co-operative

arrangement, in which a group manages

the affairs of their respective housing

estates.

-The framework does not facilitate

individual ownership, however there is a

democratic process whereby residents

have a say in all the decision making.

-This promotes a shared interest in the up-

keep of the property.

- All revenue and surplus generated for the

various commercial ventures ar e

reinvested in the programme.

- Units can not be sold privately, ensures amaximum rent.

- 50% of the co-operatives properties

allocated by the local council.

Social enterprise

Not applicable

-Non profit organisation which

undertakes mix use ( residential and

light commercial) development in

London


56/76

-.

GLOBAL

LOCAL

PUBLICPRIVATE

Local community

Amenitynetwork

Heygate

residents

Local businesses

Lend LeaseChains

Universities

Artists/WorkshopsPractice

of dissent

Church

1. HOUSING

ASSOCIATIONS

2. HOUSING

COOPERATIVES

London Residents

3. SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

DEVELOPMENT

TRUST

New Residents4. PRIVATE

DEVELOPERS

FINANCIAL

INSTITUTIONS

Mayor of

London

Southwark

Council


Heygate

-

-

-

Alternative Regeneration

X$

2.2 Alternative Actor Map-

ping for the area

-

-

-

-


57/76

53

Other Housing Projects

-

-

Shopping

Centre

-

-

-

X$


58/76


-

-

-


59/76

55


60/76


-

-

X

$


61/76


62/76



63/76

59

-

-

-


64/76



65/76

-

61

X$


66/76

3

1

2

2


Green Spaces

1

2

3

X$


67/76

63

-

Shopping Centre

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

X$


68/76


2.4

X$


69/76

65


70/76


-


71/76

67

7. Conclusion-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


72/76



73/76

69

2. Context

3. Analysis

-

-

-

-

-

5. Visions

6. Design Areas

-


74/76


7. Conclusion


75/76

71

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9. References

-

-

-

-

-


76/76

TRANSFORMERS OF LOCAL AREASAtiyeh Ardakanian, Philip Comerford, Hayley Gewer, Lina Gonzalez, Zhuo

Gong, Lisa Hanking, Hanna Hilbrant, Chris Montgomery, Laura Pinzon,

Ariel Shepherd, Anna Subirats

reclaiming regeneration

Documents