Architecture+Design Scotland

Show navigation

Introduction
This report relates to a consultation document on a strategy for the Union Canal within the Edinburgh area presented at an A+DS Design Review meeting held on 23rd November 2010 in Edinburgh.

A+DS Views

1 General
1.1 We are pleased to be consulted on The Edinburgh Canal Strategy Document and thank the City of Edinburgh Council for their presentation. The Union Canal is a unique asset for the city, and the central belt in which it runs through, and we support the preparation of a strategy for guiding its development and promoting a vision for returning this important part of Scotland’s heritage to use.

1.2 We note that this is the second stage in the consultation process prior to preparing a revised Draft Canal Strategy for full consultation early next year and offer the following comments for consideration at this time.

2 Methodology and format
2.1 We are broadly in support of the aspirations for the Strategy, in terms of ‘making the canal into a recognisable place whilst addressing issues that may impair its potential’. However, we do not feel that the consultation document, in posing a series of questions and options, is set out in a way that lends itself to the best possible outcome. We suggest that more useful and constructive feedback could be derived from putting forward draft proposals for comment and encourage the City to go into a consultation with a strong vision rather than an ‘open book’ approach. We suggest that the Document needs to be made more inspirational and specific in this respect.

3 Scope, linkages and connectivity
3.1 We understand that the consultation focuses on the Union Canal within the Edinburgh area – specifically around three ‘hubs’ identified as key areas with specific character through early stages of public consultation namely: Ratho, Wester Hails and the Canal Quarter, also known as Fountainbridge. However, we are worried that the Strategy is only focusing on these hubs at the moment driven by consents granted or applications in the pipeline, rather than seeing the Canal as a unified resource, and so we would also like to see how the Canal can be linked together as a continuum through those qualities that make it special – as an archaeological monument, its potential for leisure and culture, and as a natural resource and source of rich and varied ecology within the city.

3.2 We note that the Document is intended to address how the spaces between the hubs can be developed, as well as the hubs themselves, and to set guidance for smaller developments coming forward between these key spaces. However, we are concerned that the consultation may be out of sequence in relation to some of the larger sites that are already undergoing development along the Canal, in particular Fountainbridge South. We question how the proposed outputs from the Canal Strategy will interface with the development brief and masterplans for this area and are encouraged to hear that parallel communication between the relevant developers, British Waterways and the Council are ongoing in this respect. We generally suggest that, if the Strategy is to have any value on developing sites, it must have clear outputs and promote conclusions for the major areas and feed into other developments along its length.

3.3 There are interesting opportunities for how public art could be incorporated into the Strategy to help to release the character of the Canal and link it together by incorporating, for example, art installations, street furniture, lighting etc. We also suggest that public art could be used as a catalyst for stimulating creativity through community consultation to help think about the Canal in a different way and bring out the special qualities in each area.

3.4 We would like to see potential for how the Strategy for the Union Canal in Edinburgh could link up with other initiatives for the Canal Network across the 5 local authorities that it crosses, and in particular Falkirk Council immediately to the west. We feel there is a missed opportunity in this respect and would encourage British Waterways Scotland and the relevant local authorities to work together to facilitate a joined up approach across these areas. We are also interested in how the Canal Strategy will tie in with other strategies in the city. We note that the Council are meeting with Sustrans in relation to how the Canal Strategy might link in with Edinburgh’s Sustainable Transport Strategy in this respect.

Conclusion
We welcome the opportunity to comment on consultation document at this time and support the development of a strategy for the Union Canal in Edinburgh in principle. However, we feel that the Strategy needs to be led by a strong vision from the City as to how the Canal environment could be developed, made more inspirational and specific, and be sufficiently bold to positively influence development. We also suggest that the consultation document could be constructed in a more positive way, have clear outputs and promote conclusions for the major and other smaller developments that it has interfaces with. It is critical that the Canal be seen as more than just the sum of its parts, and we would like to see more about how linkages can be formed along its length in this respect. We suggest there is potential for public art to play an important role in how this could be achieved in a more creative and stimulating way and encourage this to be explored in order to help bring out the special qualities in each area, and the project as a whole. We would also like to see potential for how the strategy for the Union Canal in Edinburgh can link up with other strategies and initiatives in the city, and in other local authorities that the Union Canal connects with.
Introduction
This report relates to a consultation document on a strategy for the Union Canal within the Edinburgh area presented at an A+DS Design Review meeting held on 23rd November 2010 in Edinburgh.

A+DS Views

1 General
1.1 We are pleased to be consulted on The Edinburgh Canal Strategy Document and thank the City of Edinburgh Council for their presentation. The Union Canal is a unique asset for the city, and the central belt in which it runs through, and we support the preparation of a strategy for guiding its development and promoting a vision for returning this important part of Scotland’s heritage to use.

1.2 We note that this is the second stage in the consultation process prior to preparing a revised Draft Canal Strategy for full consultation early next year and offer the following comments for consideration at this time.

2 Methodology and format
2.1 We are broadly in support of the aspirations for the Strategy, in terms of ‘making the canal into a recognisable place whilst addressing issues that may impair its potential’. However, we do not feel that the consultation document, in posing a series of questions and options, is set out in a way that lends itself to the best possible outcome. We suggest that more useful and constructive feedback could be derived from putting forward draft proposals for comment and encourage the City to go into a consultation with a strong vision rather than an ‘open book’ approach. We suggest that the Document needs to be made more inspirational and specific in this respect.

3 Scope, linkages and connectivity
3.1 We understand that the consultation focuses on the Union Canal within the Edinburgh area – specifically around three ‘hubs’ identified as key areas with specific character through early stages of public consultation namely: Ratho, Wester Hails and the Canal Quarter, also known as Fountainbridge. However, we are worried that the Strategy is only focusing on these hubs at the moment driven by consents granted or applications in the pipeline, rather than seeing the Canal as a unified resource, and so we would also like to see how the Canal can be linked together as a continuum through those qualities that make it special – as an archaeological monument, its potential for leisure and culture, and as a natural resource and source of rich and varied ecology within the city.

3.2 We note that the Document is intended to address how the spaces between the hubs can be developed, as well as the hubs themselves, and to set guidance for smaller developments coming forward between these key spaces. However, we are concerned that the consultation may be out of sequence in relation to some of the larger sites that are already undergoing development along the Canal, in particular Fountainbridge South. We question how the proposed outputs from the Canal Strategy will interface with the development brief and masterplans for this area and are encouraged to hear that parallel communication between the relevant developers, British Waterways and the Council are ongoing in this respect. We generally suggest that, if the Strategy is to have any value on developing sites, it must have clear outputs and promote conclusions for the major areas and feed into other developments along its length.

3.3 There are interesting opportunities for how public art could be incorporated into the Strategy to help to release the character of the Canal and link it together by incorporating, for example, art installations, street furniture, lighting etc. We also suggest that public art could be used as a catalyst for stimulating creativity through community consultation to help think about the Canal in a different way and bring out the special qualities in each area.

3.4 We would like to see potential for how the Strategy for the Union Canal in Edinburgh could link up with other initiatives for the Canal Network across the 5 local authorities that it crosses, and in particular Falkirk Council immediately to the west. We feel there is a missed opportunity in this respect and would encourage British Waterways Scotland and the relevant local authorities to work together to facilitate a joined up approach across these areas. We are also interested in how the Canal Strategy will tie in with other strategies in the city. We note that the Council are meeting with Sustrans in relation to how the Canal Strategy might link in with Edinburgh’s Sustainable Transport Strategy in this respect.

Conclusion
We welcome the opportunity to comment on consultation document at this time and support the development of a strategy for the Union Canal in Edinburgh in principle. However, we feel that the Strategy needs to be led by a strong vision from the City as to how the Canal environment could be developed, made more inspirational and specific, and be sufficiently bold to positively influence development. We also suggest that the consultation document could be constructed in a more positive way, have clear outputs and promote conclusions for the major and other smaller developments that it has interfaces with. It is critical that the Canal be seen as more than just the sum of its parts, and we would like to see more about how linkages can be formed along its length in this respect. We suggest there is potential for public art to play an important role in how this could be achieved in a more creative and stimulating way and encourage this to be explored in order to help bring out the special qualities in each area, and the project as a whole. We would also like to see potential for how the strategy for the Union Canal in Edinburgh can link up with other strategies and initiatives in the city, and in other local authorities that the Union Canal connects with.