Architecture+Design Scotland

Show navigation

INTRODUCTION

In response to a request from the City of Edinburgh Council, a report dated 2^nd September 2005 was forwarded to the Project Team and to the Council with the following observations.

1. Background

1.1 The Western Harbour amended Masterplan was approved by the Council in September 2004. Modifications had been made to the approved Masterplan in respect of the roads and infrastructure, some of which impacted on land outwith the original Masterplan boundary.

1.2 In order to accommodate the requirements of the tramline and a newly proposed tram stop, modifications to the road layout, in particular the South Gate/ Lindsay Road junction had been made. Robert Adam Architects had reanalysed the urban design context and illustrated the amendments in a supporting document.

1.3 The fact that Western Harbour was a peninsula; that developments were carried out on its landward edge prior to any masterplan being in place; and that there were various land ownership issues affecting the development of critical areas meant that the potential relationship between the existing neighbourhoods to the north and new neighbourhoods being planned to the south had always represented a challenge.

1.4 The current amendments related to the area where the Masterplan met the rest of the city. The way in which connections were made and the quality of the public realm enhanced was, therefore, critical.

2. A+DS' OBSERVATIONS

2.1 One of A+DS' primary concerns was the way in which the amended road network might have a deleterious impact on the already weak relationship between the planned new neighbourhood on the peninsula and existing communities to the south. The original Masterplan showed the junction between South Gate and Lindsay Road performing as primary entrance and exit to the peninsula, for both vehicles and pedestrians, but an important new urban space was to be formed with an additional connection to Lindsay Road and the area re-landscaped to improve the pedestrian environment.

2.2 The amended layout, which also provided more detailed information than was hitherto available, showed a tortuous and potentially alien pedestrian environment and reinforced concerns that might have been held when the original Masterplan was prepared regarding the tenuous connection between the new neighbourhood and the rest of the city. The omission of South Link, which would have formed a secondary vehicular and pedestrian connection between South Square and Lindsay Road, the introduction of six lanes of traffic into South Gate and the apparent widening of Lindsay Road to accommodate segregated traffic lanes and the new tram stop, would all make the boundary between the existing and new communities more difficult to understand and negotiate.

2.3 South Square was originally envisaged as a pedestrian friendly environment forming a valuable public amenity and focus at the gateway to the new neighbourhood. Vehicular arrangements seemed again to have taken precedence and the qualitative aspects of the square diminished.

3. CONCLUSIONS

3.1 It was recognised that conflicting requirements of the various methods of transport proposed, concentrated within a small area, had created potentially insurmountable problems for the designers involved. It was, however, critical that pedestrian connections were maintained and a variety of high quality public spaces introduced in this important area. A+DS remained to be convinced that sufficient attention had been given to these critical issues. A more radical approach might have to be made towards the arrangements for vehicular transport, perhaps within a re-assessment of a wider land area, if the quality of the public realm was to be maintained.

Back to search and latest design review reports