Architecture+Design Scotland

Show navigation

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 ‘Plot A' forms part of both the Llewelyn Davies (2001) and Page + Park Waterfront Edinburgh (2003) Masterplans. Outline permission has been granted for 870m² of commercial space and 168 dwellings. The Masterplan calls for ‘special' buildings to mark important corners but this proposal includes a 13-storey tower which exceeds the storey heights as set out in the outline consent of 5-7 stories.

1.2 This application involves the ‘Approval of Reserved Matters' for ‘Plot A' and has been prepared by EMA Architects. The site is owned by Edinburgh Waterfront, who have concluded missives with Barratt East Scotland, who will take possession once planning permission is secured.

1.3 ‘Plot A' forms the western flank of Saltire Square, and is considered to be the metaphorical ‘heart' of the Edinburgh Waterfront Masterplan. The site's location, at the intersection of Waterfront Avenue and The Walk, makes it a key element in the overall development. The principal building of ‘Plot A' is a 13-storey tower which the applicant intends to be seen as a new landmark, juxtaposed with the Upper Strand tower (designed by Reiach + Hall Architects and currently under construction).

1.4 The site is currently vacant and covers 0.63 hectares. ‘Plot A' is one of a series of courtyard blocks which characterise the overall masterplan approach. The current proposal contains 282m² of commercial space at the base of the tower and 167 dwellings. There are 162 car parking spaces, most of which are located in an underground car park. The development includes a mix of maisonettes, flats and townhouses with 15% designated as ‘Affordable Housing'.

1.5 ‘Plot A' is surrounded by three development sites which have all received detailed planning permission, namely; the ‘Upper Strand' development (which includes the aforementioned 11 storey ‘landmark' tower), ‘Plot B' (Wimpey's Harbour Green) which varies between 5-7 stories and ‘Madelvic One' (by Buredi) which would be 7 stories high.

2.0 OBSERVATIONS

2.1 Scale

2.1.1 Phase 1 of the Upper Strand Development was recently named ‘Best Housing Project' at the National Home Builder Design Awards 2005. EMA Architects' argue that the Upper Strand tower has been compromised during its design development and will not fulfil its intended role as a landmark building. However, the proposed ‘Plot A' tower appears to compete with, rather than complement, the existing Upper Strand tower. This situation will be compounded if Phase 6 of the Upper Strand project (comprising a tower by Ushida Findlay Architects) proceeds.

2.1.2 The ‘Plot A' tower would be a prominent urban marker but would over-shadow its immediate neighbours. The tower sits in the southwest corner of the site and so shades the rest of the development from available sunlight. The toddlers' play area, for example, would always be in shade. The tower accommodates some commercial spaces which would open on to the public square and help animate this space. The ‘Plot A' tower would dominate the view looking east along Waterfront Avenue but its design is somewhat formal and decidedly pedestrian. The justification for such a tall tower, however, is not credible in this instance. The proposed design is very leaden and the ‘ski-slope' roof form appears crude and lacking in sophistication.

2.1.3 The Design Statement makes the analogy of the ‘Plot A' tower being akin to a campanile or church spire (such as Pilkington's soaring 76m spire at Barclay Place, Edinburgh) but, given its bulk and intended usage, any such justification appears misguided. Other references in the Design Statement allude to Scotland's architectural legacy of tollbooths and town halls but, again, such analogies are largely irrelevant in the consideration of a private residential development.

2.2 Orientation

2.2.1 The building adjacent to The Walk contains single aspect apartments which, although south-facing, would be over shadowed by the block to the south. Also, these apartments face into an internal courtyard which is not desirable. Ideally any single aspect units should be fronting a public street and not into a court. In addition they should either have good views and visual amenity if they are facing north, or take advantage of a south-facing aspect.

2.2.2 The proposed flats along Waterfront Avenue appear rather mean in their proportions. The private terraces at ground floor are north facing and would not enjoy any direct sunlight.

2.3 Open space

2.3.1 Saltire Square occupies a pivotal position and will be well served by public transport links. The Walk is intended for pedestrians and cyclists and there is a proposed tram stop at Waterfront Avenue. The construction of Waterfront Avenue is now complete and has aspirations to be seen as a broad boulevard with some civic presence. The hard landscaping to Saltire Square and The Walk is also complete including street lamps, bench seating and public sculpture.

2.3.2 The design of the communal garden deck needs considerable development. No refuse stores or drying areas have been indicated and the proposed layout appears simplistic. A number of important issues need to be resolved; for example, how can you bring more sunlight into the court? How can you screen the void down to the car park? What is the proposed management and maintenance programme for this communal space? How does the design foster residents' involvement and nurture their sense of ownership and responsibility?

2.3.3 A+DS is concerned that the spatial qualities of the proposals remain hesitant and that due to the width of major routes and the apparent low density of the built form the spaces between buildings could lack definition. Windswept empty boulevards and unpopulated open spaces will prove alienating. Multiple entrances from the street, rather than the inner court, would help activate the streets.

2.3.4 The ‘Plot A' proposals need to illustrate more context, perhaps using photo-montage, to facilitate a fuller consideration of the scheme and allow the required spatial examination to take place.

2.4 Housing mix

2.4.1 The current proposal includes a mix of accommodation types but an even broader range of lifestyles should be encouraged by incorporating live/work units. Such diversity might address the long-term sustainability of this new community. No provision has been made for people with special needs.

2.4.2 The project breaks down into four elements, namely: The Tower (13 storeys), The Walk (varies from 4-8 storeys), The Mews (3 storey terraced houses) and The Pavilion (5-7 storeys) which all look into a central landscaped courtyard. It is The Mews which, although the most modest, is perhaps the most successful element. Here the fue divisions are expressed, the roofline is animated and the scale respects the approved designs for the adjacent ‘Plot B'.

2.4.3 The selected precedents illustrated within the Design Statement for the various residential elements seem irrelevant; The Walk, for example, reputedly takes its inspiration from Edinburgh Castle, whereas The Pavilion aspires to echo Harvey Nichols on St. Andrew's Square, Edinburgh. Such associations are perplexing in what is intended as essentially a housing development.

2.4.4 The architects' intention appears confused about whether it is a traditional tenement or an apartment block? On plan it appears as a traditional block development but the reality is that it is a medium high-rise development, when seen in elevation. The block morphology is therefore forced and uncomfortable relative to its scale. The block plan should be encouraged to either break away from maintaining the building line, and open up to allow light into the depth of the site, or adopt a lower 4-5 storey approach to suit the scale of the block.

2.5 Access and entry

2.5.1 Pedestrian access would appear to be either via the underground car park for residents or through the gated courtyard for visitors. Doors from stairs at ground floor appear to open directly on to the pavement with no threshold zone, so are they intended for emergency use only? Access via the court means that there would be no private amenity space for the residents. It would also deprive the streets of any life and A+DS would therefore question the validity of this strategy. A more sophisticated response is required for ‘Plot A'. Proper entrances from the street, rather than the inner court, would help activate the surrounding streets.

2.5.2 The basement car park, accommodating 132 cars, is large and could be threatening, especially at night. It will therefore require some sort of supervision in order to feel secure.

2.6 Materials

2.6.1 If ‘Plot A' is to be a beacon for the whole waterfront development, then the choice of reconstituted stone and UPVC windows is inappropriate for a building with such aspirations. The same limited palette of materials is used through the development and would result in a homogenous appearance which dilutes the architects' underlying concept of four distinct elements.

2.6.2 Given its relatively exposed location, any proposal must acknowledge the impact of the local microclimate - specifically in relation to wind. Information on inclement conditions, weathering of materials, etc. could be useful in refining the design and choice of materials. Where feasible, some empirical analysis or testing of models may be justified.

3.0 CONCLUSION

3.1 This proposal is a somewhat opportunistic response to an important nodal location in the Masterplan. The original outline application allowed for only one landmark tower (i.e. Upper Strand Phase 1) and the remaining sites were to be between 5-7 storeys. A+DS does not accept the argument for a second tower at this location. The current proposal should respect the guiding principles, otherwise the Masterplan will be valueless and every subsequent application will compete to exceed the previous in terms of height. It appears that the architects have confused the masterplaner's desire for a ‘special building' with a big building that is anything but special.

3.2 The architects' strategy employs a variety of typologies but, essentially, this scheme needs to calm down and re-focus on what makes a good street, walk, square, boulevard and court; then figure out how to articulate the various blocks in order to support these elements. A key factor in its success will be the quality of the inner court.

3.3 If Waterfront Edinburgh is to succeed then it needs to confound expectations. This particular scheme needs to display more ambition and at the same time accept its role in the wider context of the Masterplan. The layout needs to exploit potential views and respond to issues of permeability and orientation. It should defer to the Upper Strand tower as the principal landmark element.

Report issued: 9^th December 2005

Back to search and latest design review reports