Reclaiming Regeneration

RECLAIMING
REPORT AND DESIGN RESPONSE I ELEPHANT AND CASTLE
REGENERATION
Elephant and Castle I Report
Elephant and Castle / Group 1 / Stage 2

Lisa Hanking,
Hanna Hilbrant, Chris Montgomery, Laura Pinzon, Ariel Shepherd, Anna Subirats
March 2012
ZZ
Acknowledgements
d-
>-
:D
Z
Wh
d > h
h>d

-
d E t d
^ W
>WD'^>
'
E>>
,>
DD-
' >
d

,
&,
ZZ
Executive summary
-

-
W
hWh^h-
>-
Wh
K
d
-
,
^

-

,
^
KK^-
-

-

Principles and Aims

K

/

^ -
-
-

ht>/

Design Responses
Findings
d

-
d>-

t -

d

>
d ,
d-

/-
d

Z -
-

Z,W

-

W

/
-

ZZ
Table of contents
//
2. Context /
K
D
/
D
3. Analysis /

,
Ws
/

^tKdD

Z>>d/
D&
,

WD
5. Vision and Principles I 37

/
Z^
t>
dd/
6. Design response /
K
^,^
7. Conclusion I 67
>/
Z/

-
::
&h
ZZ
1. Introduction
d

-
d-

K-

-
^

-
-

-
-

&K

'D
10 Elephant and Castle I Report
d

^
&,
ZZ
11
&>
2. Context
Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area

Zd>^
^
d-
-
>W
^ ^
d

Being In limbo
/ -
-
D

^
Mapping the process

,

-
W ^ d

W
^>W^
dtt//-

ds
d

-

-
&

-
&d

-

-

-

,
d
K
-

-

Z ^ > >
Z

,
d

'

&,-
ZZ
13
Mapping the actors

d
-

d-
-
GLOBAL
Lend Lease
&
-
Universities
Chains
London Residents
Church
PRIVATE
Soundings
Mayor of
London
Local community
Local
buisnesses
Practice
of dissent
Amenity
network
Heygate
residents
Artists/Workshops
LOCAL
Southwark
Council
PUBLIC
d
/

,>
&,
ZZ
15
3. Analysis
^ K -

Economy
^
dK
/
-

>

d

>
>>
-
&
^

&>-

D

>
-
K^
tZd-

-

>
&

&

'
D
Housing
d K
-
^

Z
W
^

E
W

^
D

primary schools
secondary
Cinema
Nursery
Pharmacy
Dental
Surgery
Museums
Church
D
&
d
&
d
d,-

E
-
t

/
W
ZZ
17
&

'
W
&W

&
W-

W>
W
W
W-

-
d

-
d
-

&
d
&',,
d
^
&,
-
Public space/Voids
^
-
'
-

-

-
&,
^<-
-
&D
>-

-
-
E/

ZZ
19

^
>
^ K

-
d,
d-
^
-

^ -
'
&
'

&
-

,
W
W
W
&
&'
,
^<
-
/
d -
-
-
d

/

d -

/

s

&
Wd
&,
ZWW
d
ZZ
21
&
t^
<
&D-
-

D
s
&
&^

'
>
3
E
&
,
Community culture
d-
-
-
^ /
-

/

,d-
K

d d Z
W d
&>
-
-
d
d>/
23
&
W
d
:
>
-
^tKdD

-
^tKd -

,

&^tKd
LOCAL ECONOMY
Private Developers
Southwark Council
structure
OPPORTUNITIES
character
uses
Space of identity, solidarity

and encounter for
minorities and low income
groups.
provisions
economic
void spaces used for

experimentation
character
provisions
economic
large investment from

developers, tariff to
public infrastructure
high number of
independent stores
Largest Latin-American economic hub,
specialist commodities
STRENGTH
London Residents
increase diversity of products
Local Community
WEAKNESS
SHOPPING MALL
VACANCY
REDEVELOPMENT
splits transport
infrastructure
aesthetics and quality
of building grim
under representation
of comparison goods
disuse
no night time activities

plans for redevelopment unknown,
shop owners have insecure future
THREATS
WALWORTH ROAD
Under performing as a mall:

bad planning
possibly displace ethnic retail
no night time activity;

preception of insecurity at night
high representation
of convenience good
ds
provisions
character
provisions
Conflict
character
Conflict
HOUSING
market
character
structure
structural integrity(?)
of building, allows for re-appropriation
daytime streetlife liveliness
progressive for the time,

unique, historical
large variety of fresh produce
high percentage of
student accomodation
LOW INCOME GROUPS
infamous, historical identity

split levels, buildings turned inwards:
children safe to appropriate
likely to be a very fast

increase in land market
high percentage of
comparatively
affordable housing
EAST STREET
private investment brings

in money for public
redevelopment
STUDENTS
OA REDEVELOPMENT
HEYGATE
MONOLITHIC
ISOLATION
higher income
renters and buyers students
homogeneity of goods
transient residents
threatens cohesive community
54% of housing socially rented,
little tax money to work with
1. E&C AS AN INCLUSIVE SPACE

2. E&C AS AN ACTIVE BUT FRAGILE COMMUNITY
3. E&C WIDELY CONNECTED BUT LOCALLY FRAGMENTED SPACE
4. E&C AS A VALUABLE GREEN SPACE
5. E&C AS AN AMBIGUOUSLY PERCEIVED SPACE
25% affordable housing @ 80% 400,000 = 360,000

Can anyone eligible for housing subsidies can afford 360,000?
Any preference for people from the area?
Only 12% ownership, rise in property values
will mean even Affordable housing is below
most local peoples means and result in
expulsion from the area
area (still) heavily stigmatized

by degeneration and crime of the past
building turned inwards,

act(s) to ghettoize
Urban forest of old/unique trees
scale and devlopment

delayed redevelopment has
allowed for multiple uses,
practices of dissent and
socio-cultural experimentation:
character
provisions
Large land area, with high value presents

a large economic opportunity
uses
appropriation, insurgent activities,

practices of dissent
INFRASTRUCTURE
/MOVEMENT
character
Conflict
uses
Conflict
Conflict
provisions
OPEN SPACES
Major roads offer easy access by car
large amount of unlandscaped open spaces
URBAN FOREST
EXPANSIVE
DEMOLITION
PUBLIC SPACES
VOID SPACES
lack of permeability between
private and public,
monofunctional use of open
spaces
inaccessibility/fragmentation
Trees restrict future development massing
splits retail pockets

(Mall from Walworth road)
fear of eviction/expulsion
low quality and articulation

(lack of maintenance, cleanliness)
Unused fenced off corridoors
are transient spaces produce insecurity
MAJOR ROADS
ROUNDABOUT
privatization,
monopoly of infrastructure by car
safety issue for

pedestrians and cyclis
fragmentation of space due to massive Modernist

mono-functional transport infrastructure
open spaces to be privately controlled
1. E&C AS AN INCLUSIVE SPACE

2. E&C AS AN ACTIVE BUT FRAGILE COMMUNITY
3. E&C WIDELY CONNECTED BUT LOCALLY FRAGMENTED SPACE
4. E&C AS VALUABLE GREEN SPACE
5. E&C AS AN AMBIGUOUSLY PERCEIVED SPACE
COMMUNITY AND CULTURE

provisions
uses
character
structure
24hour bus service, train and tube
Active community
Inclusive space for
minorities and low
income groups
MAJOR TRANSPORT HUB
Centre offer space of well being, meeting

place of Elephant & Ammenity Network
Insurgent cultural uses
CROSSWAY CHURCH & THE CENTRE IN RODNEY PLACE
hosts the formal participatory process carry out by the developers,

manifests public-private sector partnerships and the
increasing political necessity of demonstrating consensus
THE CONSULTATION HUB
OA REDEVELOPMENT
Lack of public space cultural investment

not easy to use, fragmented, hidden
Displacement/broken community
High transient population
ists
uses
congestion and crowding, with

increased population
High unemployment
High crime rates
Obsolecence of community spaces
not clear where new community

centers will be after demolition
community initiatives) reveal a local
dissensus surrounding the regeneration
ZZ
25

&-
Analytic Dimensions
ZZ
27
-

W
ZZ
29
4. Redevelopement
through Lend Lease -
Threat to E&C
/

D& d-

Castle
-
/ ,
^
-
,
>-

> > > -

d
d -
>>-
-
&d-

&>

s^
sD
&,
&W
>>

>>
,
>&>

Z&,

-
D
> -
K

-

d >

>
>>

d -
Z
-
Z/

> >
-

^
,
d
-
ZZ
31
&
,

d ^-
, ^ ^-

-
>Wd

,

-

d

^
-

,

-
>>
Embodied Energy
d
,
-

d
-

h<d-

'-

>^
d

Z
>
d

/-
-

-

-

d

&
&W,^-
h^
&^

D-

>^

-

,

-

h
t

W >

t -

d

W
t -

W

d

ZZ
33
Proposed Masterplan
d > >
-
-

-
D
>>
-
-
-
> >
Amount of affordable and social housing.......
Piecemeal
Measures Taken
Fully
Addressed
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 .............................
&
D
>>
&>
>D
K
-
^D
Z
-
-
-

^-
-
d
dd-
^
&,
ZZ
35
5. Vision and Principles

d
>

&

-

/
-

/

Z^
/ -
h
-

K-

-

D
^

^/

Z

-
^/

K

-

-
d-

-
h
-

W

-
&h^
d

d


^
Sustainability

Z

-
-

-

&/
Inclusiveness

Sustainability

Z

t>
dZ

-
ZZ
> E-

-
-

/

-

^
5HGHQLQJ6XVWDLQDELOLW\
37

^

Z

&Z^-

/

&t>
/
Way of Life and Identity

-

-

ZZ
The Council`s Themes vs. Design Interventions
39
&d
d/-
^&
&,
ZZ
41
6. Design Response
^
^^
d-

>-

,-

Z -

K^
>-
-

-
&>
d-

-
Elephant and
castle
Table of contents
1. Opportunity Area
E
Z
K

^,
Shopping Centre
>&K

Z&

D
D^
Z

,^
E
'^
^
^W
ZZ
43

Z

-

^

tZ
-

/
&Z
'
&^&/
^'
W

1. Opportunity Area
1.2. Connecting and

Removing Barriers
d

/
-

-

&/


>
-

&
-
&d
-

&&

&E-

-
&-

-

&
&d
-

&W-

&E

&&
ZZ
45

>
W
'
W
'
>
W
&'^

1.2 Alternative proposals for

OA Development sites
$
>&E-
-

&Z
Studio Elephant (arts space)/ Cool > d

d -

&t
Z
tZ

'

tZ>^
CRISP (Community Recycling in South &

-
W

ZZ
47
^'
^
K

d

D,
&

>
<W/
-

/

&

-
>&
h'
-
-
/
Z'^
Urban Gardening Club building

d

Strategic housing

-

d
-
&D
,/
ZZ
49
&/
^'
AMENITY
NETWORK
HOUSING
STATE IN NORWAY
Led by the
community
Housing Cooperatives
Area based initiatives
-
A highly successful welfare system.
Preservation & Maintenance

-
Part demolished/
refurbished
A mixed housing stock

Critical engagement, and active
participation.
High ownership rate (low

proportion of public housing)
Interim activities, providing a

new temporal realm of the
place.
Positives
characteristics
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.
Negatives
characteristics
&ZW
Fairly satisfactory conditions,

physical and social.
Large housing states are generally

stigmatized.
Other
characteristics
2.1 Comparison of housing

estate redevelopments
Redevelopment Approach /
Main Actors
Signs of gentrification, well

educated couples arriving to the
area.
Incapable of changing wider

structures of power.
Able to participate, but unable to

transform the bases of the
redevelopment plan.
ZZ
51
6LWH+H\JDWH(VWDWH 6KRSSLQJ&HQWUH
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN
Lend Lease
COIN STREET
COMMUNITY
BUILDERS
PARK HILLS &

BRUNWISK CENTRE
REDEVELOPMENT
Private Developers
Social enterprise
Non profit organisation which
undertakes mix use (residential and
light commercial) development in
London
Demolish and start again
Pedestrian centre development.
It is the economic catalyst for the

regeneration of the whole area,
providing the resources to improve
infrastructure.
Not applicable
Renovation and Conversion

Keeps record of the Citys history,
looking for solutions within the
existing urban fabric.
Able to provide affordable housing

solutions.
- 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.
Creates housing solutions for fisttime buyers.
This promotes a shared interest in the upkeep of the property.
Start from scratch to erase the

memory of the city.
Misconception of the term

Sustainability
- Previous tenants evicted.
-
Gentrification. The focus on foreign

investment doesnt ease
the local housing shortage.
The regeneration is solely based on
profit
Previous tenants evicted.

It is difficult to foresee If the outcome
would be negative or positive.
- Regeneration is based on profit
-
-
- Units can not be sold privately, ensures a

maximum rent.
- 50% of the co-operatives properties

allocated by the local council.
Incorporate the aesthetics
demanded by a specific market.
Follows the trend of reusing structures

and marketing a new lifestyle.
-
- Iconic buildings desirable by
foreign capital.
Follows London Global City vision.
- All revenue and surplus generated for the

various commercial ventures are
reinvested in the programme.
GLOBAL
Lend Lease
Chains
London Residents
Universities
PUBLIC
Church
PRIVATE
4. PRIVATE
DEVELOPERS
New Residents
3. SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
DEVELOPMENT
TRUST
2. HOUSING
COOPERATIVES
FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS
Local community
Local businesses
Practice
of dissent
Amenity
network
Artists/Workshops -.
Heygate
residents
LOCAL
&E
1. HOUSING
ASSOCIATIONS
Mayor of
London
Southwark
Council
2.2 Alternative Actor Map-

ping for the area
&
-

D -

-

/
-

^

&

,
0DLQ6WUDWHJLHVIRU
Alternative Regeneration
Heygate
Z

-

d

Z^-

D E -

ZZ
d^
Other Housing Projects
53
Shopping
Centre
E <W -

,

^
-
K

^
Z
Z /
- Z
/

-

&,
dE<Z
W

Z>-

&
W
^>-

^ ^ ^
-
Z
Z

W-

ZZ
55
&^
&^
^

&
W
&E
X
E
,^
Z
W-

-

W
ZZ
57
&/

,

Z

-
&W
&
',
&W
ZZ
59
&W
-
&

W
&W
-
E

-

,

Z
^,

&E
&D
&
ZZ
&dW
-

&
>&

Z&Z

61

W

h
Green Spaces
>
>
2
3
1
2
3
&

&h
ZZ
63

&d-
-
d
-
d

,&
Shopping Centre
&^
&
/-

d
-

d
-
-
-
&
E
2.4 $OWHUQDWLYH6LWH3ODQ
ZZ
65
-

,
&d
ZZ
67
7. Conclusion
d-

d

-
-
d

-

d

-

-

&

-
d
-
-
&
-

^-

-

t-

-
&
-

-
,
^
^
W ^ d

>>>

-
Z
-


&,
,
ZZ
69
/LVWRIJXUHV

,
>>W
/
,
d

>-

W>>
>
h
K
2. Context
,
>

d
,
3. Analysis
,

>

-

d
d

d&',
,
,
D>-

'

,
',
',
',
Wd
,ZWWd-
t
D
^
,
>
Wd
^tKd

,-
D

W,^
^
D
D>>
>>D
5. Visions
,
/
Z^
t>/
dd/
6. Design Areas
,
>
K

Z
^&
/
d
-
'^
E
E
tZ

<W/
<W/
h'
h'
D,
/
ZW
E
,W
W
^
^
W
E
/
W
',
W
W
W
E
D
E
d

Z
E
h
^
/
&W
7. Conclusion
d
>
,
ZZ
71
9. References
< Z , ^ E-
,D^K
,,'-
-

&^^
Z '
^d
>^
,D> & >
D D d -
h<,W
ZKDE

, & D -
d d h '-
>'
,dZE>
Z
D
::d>'-
EzZ,
>,dZ
,>t<
>K
>^

>>'>
> Z -
Z
/
D':
^W-
ZKZ
W -

W
W,^-
W/-
hW
^>Wh^-
W
/ E h Z
EhZ
^,>
-

EWD
DD>Z
^^W-
^WKW
&KW&>^
TRANSFORMERS OF LOCAL AREAS

Atiyeh Ardakanian, Philip Comerford, Hayley Gewer, Lina Gonzalez, Zhuo
Gong, Lisa Hanking, Hanna Hilbrant, Chris Montgomery, Laura Pinzon,
Ariel Shepherd, Anna Subirats

Reclaiming Regeneration

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Reclaiming Regeneration

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

RECLAIMING

REPORT AND DESIGN RESPONSE I ELEPHANT AND CASTLE

Elephant and Castle I Report

Elephant and Castle / Group 1 / Stage 2

Elephant and Castle I Report

Principles and Aims

Elephant and Castle I Report

5. Vision and Principles I 37

Elephant and Castle I Report

10 Elephant and Castle I Report

12 Elephant and Castle I Report

Mapping the actors

14 Elephant and Castle I Report

16 Elephant and Castle I Report

18 Elephant and Castle I Report

20 Elephant and Castle I Report

22 Elephant and Castle I Report

24 Elephant and Castle I Report

Space of identity, solidarity

void spaces used for

large investment from

increase diversity of products

no night time activities

Under performing as a mall:

possibly displace ethnic retail

no night time activity;

progressive for the time,

large variety of fresh produce

LOW INCOME GROUPS

infamous, historical identity

likely to be a very fast

private investment brings

1. E&C AS AN INCLUSIVE SPACE

25% affordable housing @ 80% 400,000 = 360,000

area (still) heavily stigmatized

building turned inwards,

Urban forest of old/unique trees

scale and devlopment

Large land area, with high value presents

appropriation, insurgent activities,

Major roads offer easy access by car

large amount of unlandscaped open spaces

Trees restrict future development massing

splits retail pockets

low quality and articulation

safety issue for

fragmentation of space due to massive Modernist

1. E&C AS AN INCLUSIVE SPACE

COMMUNITY AND CULTURE

24hour bus service, train and tube

MAJOR TRANSPORT HUB

Centre offer space of well being, meeting

Insurgent cultural uses

CROSSWAY CHURCH & THE CENTRE IN RODNEY PLACE

hosts the formal participatory process carry out by the developers,

THE CONSULTATION HUB

Lack of public space cultural investment

congestion and crowding, with

Obsolecence of community spaces

not clear where new community

26 Elephant and Castle I Report

28 Elephant and Castle I Report

30 Elephant and Castle I Report

32 Elephant and Castle I Report

CRISP (Community Recycling in South &