Concepts and Masterplans

Last Monday was the second Crit of my final MA Project. I've posted before (about the project) but I haven't actually explained what and why my project is or about. I think its time to correct this..

My project is about connecting the lost Medieval (more Industrial) quarter, Wincheap, to Canterbury City Centre. Wincheap formed during the middle ages along one of the major routes into Canterbury. Since then the area has expanded with housing to the south and Commercial/Industrial warehouses to the North. The latter area gives Wincheap something of an undesirable air.

As my course is Landscape Assessment and Design, I need some developments to look at. Mine consist of 3 separate developments that are hypothetically being consolidated.

In 2007 Canterbury City Council commissioned masterplanning for regeneration of Development 1: Wincheap Industrial Estate. The Plans only got so far but now (in the hypothetical student world) following the recent (again hypothetical as the developments are nearly completed) submission of planning on Development 2: The Tannery & Development 3: Bingley Court, the council wish the company who are planning Development 3 to head all three Developments as a whole (so I am assuming that Developer No.3 has purchased the rights to Development No.2). Issues the council wish the developer to tackle are:

1. The connectivity, particularly for the pedestrian, of Wincheap to Canterbury
2. Connections across all three developments into the doorstep countryside; namely Hambrook Marshes, Whitehall Meadows and Westgate Parks
3. The character of the development and it's relationship to Canterbury's Townscape character; this relates both to Massing, Street configuration and Building aesthetics.
4. The sustainability of the development, particularly in relation to SUDs for flood AND drought mitigation.
5. The benefits on the local economy. The developments should be mixed with a view to attracting tourists and to engagement with local colleges and/or universities.

So first off the existing developments need to be analysed using diagrams: 

Permeability

EXISTING SITUATION

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS

 What's wrong:

• Rheims way (Ring Road) presents a barrier between Wincheap and Canterbury

What's right:

• The Eastern Rail line diving Development 1 & 2 has been dealt with by providing connections through the embankment

MITIGATED PROPOSAL

What's new:

• The neglected Rheims Way underpasses are renovated into unique green spaces making the connection between Canterbury and Wincheap a positive one rather than negative one

Pedestrian Circulation

EXISTING SITUATION

PROPOSED CIRCULATION

  What's wrong:

• There is no deep connection in the surrounding landscape
• There is no meaningful link to Canterbury city centre 

What's right:

• Connections have been made between the new Wincheap neighbourhood and the old Wincheap neighbourhood

MITIGATED PROPOSALS

What's new:

• Alongside the existing Great Stour cycle/walk way there is now a Little Stour Cycle/Way taking people from the new centre of Wincheap into the Heart of Canterbury
• The Great Stour itself is bridged at several new points enabling Wincheap residents to directly access the countryside
• An old rail embankment provides a deeper link not only into Wincheap but also into the doorstep countryside

Ecology & Connection to the landscape

EXISTING SITUATION

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS

 What's wrong:

• Established habitats are removed or threatened
• All new landscape is amenity based

What's right:

• New public open space is being introduced

MITIGATED ECOLOGY

What's new:

• Green chains are strengthened
• Existing ecologically beneficial habitats are protected and extended
• Local habitats are brought into developments to create a relationship with the sorrounding landscape

Hydrology and SUDs

EXISTING SITUATION - Grey represents impermeable surfaces

PROPOSED HARD & SOFT LANDSCAPING

 What's wrong:

• Developments 1 & 2 fail to engage with the River
• All developments fail to put forth a SUDs proposal

What's right:

• Development 3 has some engagement with the River
• Development 1 has some permeable landscape

What's new:

• The river is extended along the layout of historical farming ditches
• The river is taken through Development 3
• Permeable landscape is extended throughout developments with a swale strategy utilising the river
• Rainwater harvesting occurs at roof level

Townscape Character: Massing

EXISTING MASSING TYPOLOGY

PROPOSED MASSING TYPOLOGY

 What's wrong:

• The height of developments and the size is inappropriate for the townscape character
• Size of buildings and street width relationship does not run in accordance with the existing city framework

What's right:

• The variation in structures

MITIGATED MASSING TYPOLOGY

What's new:

• There is a hierarchy in building use to building size

The Cultural Connection

EXISTING CULTURE/HERITAGE DISTRIBUTION

PROPOSED CULTURE/HERITAGE DISTRIBUTION

 What's wrong:

• New developments fail to connect to the culture or heritage of Canterbury, a city rich in these things

What's right:

• Development 3 eludes to the mediaeval city wall 

MITIGATED CULTURE/HERITAGE DISTRIBUTION

What's new:

• Culture/ Heritage is introduced across all 3 developments by use of craft market space, artist live/work studios, University Arts Centre, commissioned public art works, Visitor centres for doorstep countryside reserves and Heritage centres for the Wincheap area and the old rail embankment.

So.. next step is consolidating these diagrams together inorder to begin the masterplanning process.

My first attempt: