Urban Design Masterplan Proposal - Year 5 Portfolio

1 PART 4 - CONCLUSION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Th is report will explain and illustrate my design for the site (or parcel) taken from the studio 1 module.Th e report is set out in 4 parts. Part 1 will begin with an introduction to the project and site followed by details of the studio 1 parcel necessary to gain a full understanding of the new site. Part 2 will introduce the themes that I have used in the design:Th e design is explained in detail in Part 2 through design themes. Th e themes provide a platform to discuss all the issues raised throughout the project and how they have been dealt with. Th ey are supported by images of what the proposal should look like and carefully considered precedents that have informed my decisions. Part 3 will go into detail about the over-arching design issues (landscape treatment, sustainability and economic feasibility) that cannot be categorised into the design themes. Although as important as the design themes, this section provides all the additional information not covered in Part 2.Part 4 will conclude the report with a brief SWOT of the fi nal proposal and a fi nishing statement on what refl ections I have had of this project including what I would change.

P R E F A C E

C O N T E N T S

PART 1 - UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT

PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES

PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY

PART 4 - CONCLUSION

6 Introduction7 Policies Considered8 Studio 1 Masterplan9 SWOT of Parcel11 Studio II Parcel12 Studio II Masterplan

40 Landscape Treatment42 Sustainability45 Sensory Richness47 Economic Feasibility

14 Concept - Key Factors15 Visual Matrix16 Site Impacts17 Concept Development18 Development Diagrams 19 3D model of site20 Design Explanation and Th emes21 Design Explanation Matrix 22 High Levels of Social Interaction 24 Shared Responsibilities and Values 28 Demographically Inclusive 30 Appropriate and Interesting Built Aesthetic -Unit Breakdown -Design Types 1-538 Design Specifi cs and Summary

50 Conclusion51 Refl ections

52 References55 Appendices

5 PART 1 - INTRODUCTION OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

6 I N T R O D U C T I O N7 P O L I C I E S C O N S I D E R E D8 S T U D I O 1 M A S T E R P L A N9 S W O T O F P A R C E L1 1 S T U D I O I I P A R C E L1 2 S T U D I O I I M A S T E R P L A N

Part 1 will discuss and illustrate the proposal origins. Th is includes policy, site constraints and a SWOT of the previous studio I site used as a basis for this project.


I N T R O D U C T I O N

Th e Urban Design specialisation for the Part II Architecture MA required us to design a proposal based on the West Oxford AAP. Roughly using the site boundaries specifi ed in the AAP, we undertook a group task and designed a scheme separated into 4 character areas.

Now individually, but still communicating as a group, the new project has allowed me to create a better and smaller scale design for one of these character areas (or parcels).

When designing this new parcel, I had a few issues partly brought into this project from the previous group project, and partly because I wanted to create a proposal that addressed issues that would ultimately end up with a high quality outcome.

Th e issues I wanted to overcome were:

Creating a design that bonded a community together and allows an ideal situation for interaction between site users to occur.

To use the existing merits of the site to their full potential in many ways to create an interesting sensory experience.

Populating the site with many types of people, not just people passing through.

Figure 1-1 Drawing out the design principals


P O L I C I E S C O N S I D E R E D

Th e policies concerning my project are detailed in this page, I have only included the ones that have been most prevalent throughout my design.

OXFORD POLICIES:POLICY CP.1 - DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALSPOLICY CP.3 - LIMITING THE NEED TO TRAVELPOLICY CP.6 - EFFICIENT USE OF LAND & DENSITYPOLICY CP.8 - DESIGNING DEVELOPMENT TO RELATE TO ITS CONTEXTPOLICY CP.9 - CREATING SUCCESSFUL NEW PLACESPOLICY CP.10 - SITING OF DEVELOPMENT TO MEET FUNCTIONAL NEEDSPOLICY NE.6 - OXFORD’S WATERCOURSEPOLICY NE.7 - DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNDEVELOPED FLOOD PLAINPOLICY NE.10 - SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGEPOLICY HS.4 - GENERAL REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSINGPOLICY HS.5 - PROPORTION AND MIX OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE PROVIDEDPOLICY HS.8 - BALANCE OF DWELLINGSPOLICY HS.21 - PRIVATE OPEN SPACEPLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 3: HOUSINGOXFORD LOCAL PLAN 2001-2016OXFORD WEST END AREA ACTION PLAN (AAP)OXFORD CORE STRATEGYAFFORDABLE HOUSINGSPON’SLONDON HOUSING GUIDE

Figure 1-2 Manual for Streets Figure 1-3 UD Compendium Figure 1-4 Oxford Core Strategy Figure 1-5 Oxford Local Plan

Figure 1-6 West End AAP Figure 1-7 SPONS 2011 Figure 1-8 London Housing Design Guide

Figure 1-9 Affordable Housing SPD


ThThThThThThThThThThThThThThThTh iiiiiiis plllllllllllllan shows the parcel thaaatttttttttt wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssss desiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddddddddddddddd iiiiiiiiiiiiiinnn the SSSSSSSSttttttttudddddddddddddddddiiiiiiiiiiooooooooooooooo 11111111111111 mmmmmmmmmmmmmoodddddule.

ThThThThThThThThThThThThThThThThThTh eeeeeeeee ddasheed areeaa sshowws my ppaarcel for tthhiis (SStuddiiioo III) proojecct. ( ) p j

S T U D I O 1 S I T E P L A N ^N

Figure 1-10 Studio 1 Masterplan with Studio II overlay


S W O T A N A L Y S I S O F S T U D I O 1 P A R C E L

2. Links to surrounding neighbourhoods and major routes

3. Natural environment highly visible from anywhere on site

4. Central zone provides a hub to draw people into the site.1. Attractive water source

As well as providing water-side views for many properties, the water also contributes to the irrigation of the allotments and adds to the sensory richness of the site.

Opportunities

5. Ability to use water in a more inclusive way rather than a fl ood counter-measure6. Involve the primary school and develop the urban farming principal further

S T R E N G T H S A N D O P P O R T U N I T I E S

12

6

5

3

4

Figure 1-11 Attractive Water Source

Figure 1-12 Connecting Streets

Figure 1-13 Prominent Natural Environment

Figure 1-14 Studio 1 Plan with Strengths and Opportunities Marked


S W O T A N A L Y S I S O F S T U D I O 1 P A R C E L

Weaknesses

1. Lack of clarity between public and private areas2. Lack of sensory experience in central zone3. Little hierarchy of streets and areas.4. Awkward corners

Th reats

5. Flooding6. Vandalism, although the central zone is very overlooked and active, there is expensive street furniture here.

1

2

6

5

3

3

4

4W E A K N E S S E S A N D T H R E A T S

Figure 1-15 Section through Studio 1 Plan Central zone

Figure 1-16 Studio 1 Plan with Weaknesses and Threats Marked


Figure 1-17 Studio II Site Plan


^N

NTS

Figu

re 1

-18

Stu

dio

II co

mpl

ete

grou

p si

te p

lan

13 PART 2 - CREATING THE INTEGRATED COMMUNITY OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT

Part 2 will illustrate the design process in chronological order. It will begin with the Key Factors taken from the SWOT in Part 1. It will then lead onto the Initial Design Matrix where the Key Factors are looked at in physical terms. Site Impacts will then be briefl y analysed resulting in the Concept Development which will be the result of all the above.

As a result of the initial analysis and concepts, the Design Explanation and Th emes will be outlined with a Design Explanation Matrix showing how the design qualities can be achieved in physical terms. Th is will then lead on to a detailed explanation of the design ordered in theme order, fi nishing with a diagram on how integrated community is linked with sensory stimulation.

1 4 K E Y F A C T O R S1 5 V I S U A L M A T R I X1 6 S I T E I M P A C T S1 7 C O N C E P T D E V E L O P M E N T1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T D I A G R A M S 1 9 3 D M O D E L O F S I T E2 0 D E S I G N E X P L A N A T I O N A N D T H E M E S2 1 D E S I G N E X P L A N A T I O N M A T R I X 2 2 H I G H L E V E L S O F S O C I A L I N T E R A C T I O N 2 4 S H A R E D R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S A N D VA L U E S 2 8 D E M O G R A P H I C A L L Y I N C L U S I V E 3 0 A P P R O P R I A T E A N D I N T E R E S T I N G B U I L T A E S T H E T I C - U N I T B R E A K D O W N - D E S I G N T Y P E S 1 - 53 8 D E S I G N S P E C I F I C S A N D S U M M A R Y


K E Y F A C T O R S

DESIGN VISION:

Th e following themes have been selected as a result of the SWOT analysis. I have outlined the most poignant factors that could really add to the richness of the new area, in both sensory and practical ways.

As a result of this preliminary analysis the following design vision has provided a backbone throughout the design.

INTEGRATED COMMUNITY

River

Vegetation and open

space

Distinctive neighbourhood

aesthetic

Existing Allotments

"To create an integrated community through sensory stimulation"

Figure 2-19 Osney Allotments

Figure 2-20 Botley Road Figure 2-21 River at site

Figure 2-22 Current site


I N I T I A L D E S I G N M A T R I X

Distinctive neighbourhood

aestheticVegetation/open space

Existing allotments

River

KEY FACTORS

PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONIDEAS

Figure 2-23 Diagram: Various Images


S I T E I M P A C T S

Figure 2-25 River Page 16River fl anks the site, therefore providing a large, natural barrier between housing on either side of the site. Th e other potential is fl ooding of the site.

Figure 2-26 Allotments Page 16Existing allotments are under-used. Th ey could be reduced in size, although they give a lot of character to the area, incorporating it into the new plan would be benefi cial for both existing and future users.

Figure 2-24 Open Space Page 16Open space can be reduced without impacting on the users or neighbours. It would be ideal to keep the green link and incorporate it into the new Masterplan.

Figure 2-28 Housing abutting site tightly Page 16Th e residential block abutting the site is restrained by a small brook lined with trees. Although there is a natural boundary here, the height of the buildings can be used as a precedent for the ridge heights in the new scheme.

Figure 2-27 Community Centre Page 16Th e local community centre provides a good focal point in the area. I would like to think a dual use for this building could be implemented.

Figure 2-30 Existing Recreational Facilities Page 16Although the open space itself isn’t intensively used, the recreational facilities are popular, and it is vital for the community to incorporate this with new proposals.

Figure 2-24 Open Space Figure 2-25 RiverFigure 2-26 Allotments

Figure 2-27 Community Centre Figure 2-30 Existing Recreational Facilities

Figure 2-28 Housing abutting site tightly

Figure 2-29 Google E

arth Image of S

ite


C O N C E P T D E V E L O P M E N T

Th e following illustration shows how I used the information and analysis to form a basis of design.

I have proposed that the green elements on the site extend into it, so the boundaries between built and unbuilt are less defi ned and therefore creating a green indulgence through the heart of the scheme.

Th e block formation has been arranged so that most blocks address the green space within the site, I foresee this acting as a node or a hub in more detailed design.

Th e blue arrows indicate potential new access into the site. If this place is to be activated, at least one of these links should be implemented.

Th e allotments on the right of the image will be more than halved in size, as they seem to be under used. As my ‘Key Factors’ diagram shows on page 1, they provide a strong theme for the new scheme. Incorporating them will not only emphasise this theme, but it will recompense the existing allotment owners for their loss in space.

Figure 2-31 Google E

arth Image of S

ite and concept overlay

Figure 2-32 Connections Figure 2-33 Blocks Figure 2-34 Connections, blocks and types


D E V E L O P M E N T P R I N C I P L E S

Th e following sketches have been drawn to illustrate some general and some specifi c Urban Design principals that are necessary for this proposal to succeed. Th roughout the design explanation, these principals will be addressed at the appropriate theme.

Figure 2-35 Hierarchy of Open spaces Figure 2-36 Make Routes interesting Figure 2-37 Identifi able Entrances

Figure 2-38 Overshadowing Figure 2-39 Public Area Focus Figure 2-40 Hierarchy of connected spaces

Figure 2-41 Intermixed housing types Figure 2-42 Places to stop and sit


Figure 2-43 3D site model showing central hub and surrounding blocks


D E S I G N E X P L A N A T I O N A N D T H E M E S

HIGH LEVELS OF SOCIAL INTERACTION

SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES AND VALUES

DEMOGRAPHICALLY INCLUSIVE

APPROPRIATE AND INTERESTING AESTHETIC

Defi nition of vision:

A majority of the people in the site interacting with each other oft en, across the demographic spectrum of the neighbourhood, and with the backdrop of an interesting and exciting place

1

2

4

3

DESIGN VISION "TO CREATE AN INTEGRATED COMMUNITY THROUGH SENSORY STIMULATION"


D E S I G N E X P L A N A T I O N M A T R I X

WHAT URBAN QUALITIES MUST BE PRESENT FOR AN INTEGRATED

COMMUNITY?

4. Appropriate and Interesting Aesthetic

2. Shared responsibilities and values

1. High levels of social interaction

3. Demographically inclusive

HOW CAN THESE URBAN QUALITIES BE DELIVERED?

Connected streets, pedestrian dominance, local shops, recreational areas, play areas

Shared open spaces, gardens, community farm

Local (Oxfordesque), varied, consistent detailing

Accessibility for all, areas for wheels as well as feet, centralised meeting points

Figure 2-44 Diagram: Various Images

Th e following matrix shows how the design themes on page 20 link to the vision of ‘Integrated Community’ and the ways in which they can be achieved in physical terms.


1 . H I G H L E V E L S O F S O C I A L I N T E R A C T I O N ( M A C R O )

DIVERSE, CROSS-SEASONAL ACTIVITIES AND DAILY TASKS THAT ALLOW A LARGE PROPORTION OF SITE USERS THE CHANCE TO INTERACT WITH OTHERS

Due to the river acting as a barrier between neighbouring residential blocks, it is important to encourage use of the site. Th is can be partially resolved by building links with the neighbouring blocks, but this alone will not activate the site. Like Jan Gehl states in his book ‘Cities for People’ ( Gehl 2010) by designing opportunities for staying it not only increases the chances that people interact, but also increases the likely hood of ‘something happening when something happens’ as Gehl states.

Figure 2-45 Movement Diagram

Macro Design Actions (DA)

DA 1: Connected streets to increase population of the site.DA 2: Hierarchy of the hub and nodes will encourage people to move from one to the otherDA3: Mixed residential tenure will allow a variety of people to activate the area for more hours of the day DA4: Allowing wide fi eld of view from the central hub to many residences and public areas

Figure 2-46 DA 2, Hierarchy of hub and nodes to encourage movement

Figure 2-47 DA 1, Connected streets increase activity


1 . 1 H I G H L E V E L S O F S O C I A L I N T E R A C T I O N ( M I C R O )

Micro Design Actions (DA)

DA 1: Playground areas provide activities for children and give back existing facilitiesDA 2: Several benches/bike racks have been specifi ed at key points in the hub to allow people to stop and stayDA 3: Allotments have been re-thought and re-introduced in the form of an urban market garden. Th ese consist of several wooden planters (2x5m). Th is will provide many opportunities for interaction as well as linking the primary school with the site as it is envisaged that the primary school will have a few planters themselves. DA 4: Interactive board to connect residents digitally

Figure 2-48 Initial sketch of hub area

Figure 2-49 CAD Plan with Interaction overlay

Figure 2-50 DA 4, Interactive screen at the central hub

Figure 2-51 DA 2, Natural Bench Figure 2-54 DA 2, Bike bike-rack

Figure 2-52 DA 3, having a focus to a public space gives it atmosphere

Figure 2-53 DA 1,2,3, places to stop and sit


2 . S H A R E D R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S A N D V A L U E S

RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, SHARED VALUES ARE THE DESIRE TO LIVE IN A ACTIVE, SOCIAL AND INTEGRATED COMMUNITY

Figure 2-55 Hab Oakus development - Swindon Triangle Plan

“Every resident here, we did interview quite rigorously about the

values of the scheme but they all bought into it.”

The joint venture between McCloud’s company Hab and the housing group GreenSquare has been designed to “encourage people to spend more time

outside” and to “socialise more”.(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-14030381)

Figure 2-56 Swindon Triangle and Kevin McCloud

P R E C E D E N T - T H E T R I A N G L E - S W I N D O N

“IT’S LOVELY. I LIKE THE SIZE OF IT AND IT IS SOBRIGHT. IT’S NICE BECAUSE YOU GO OUT THE

FRONT DOOR AND EVERYONE IS LIKE ‘HIYA’AND ‘MORNING’. WE WERE SO EXCITED

WHEN WE FOUND OUT WE WERE GOING TOMOVE HERE.”

TRACY HACKETT - RESIDENT(HTTP://WWW.WESTLEA.CO.UK/PUBLICATIONS/HOME_AUTUMN11.PDF)

Th is development by Hab Oakus aimed to get people to ‘buy in’ to their new homes. Before the site was even completed, residents were invited (and urged!) to come into the site and assist with the planting of the landscape. By doing this is not only helps the neighbours to get to know one another, but it also forces the residents into an emotional attachment with their surroundings, which one would assume, they would try and maintain.

I could see this working well in my site, although more research would have to be carried out on this precedent to see whether the actions the neighbours carried out actually had the desired eff ect on the neighbourhood.

Design Actions (DA)

DA 1: Neighbour maintenance of landscape. Like in the Swindon case study, neighbours will be encouraged to maintain their surrounding environment: As proved, by having an emotional attachment with the landscape, it can reduce vandalism and increase opportunities for community interactionDA 2: Urban Market Gardening and selling scheme. Th e benefi ts of this are numerous, but in terms of sharing responsibilities it and values, this can bond a community together.DA 3: Car Share scheme. Firstly as there aren’t enough car spaces for all residents, it aides mobility for residents without spaces. Secondly, for a city that has congestion issues, the car share scheme means that the pressure on Oxford is reduced, as well as reducing carbon emissions.

Figure 2-57 DA3, Car Share


1 : 2 0 0 P L A N O F C E N T R A L H U B A N D S U R R O U N D I N G B U I L D I N G S

Figure 2-58 1:200 of Central hub


2 . 1 S H A R E D R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S A N D V A L U E S

Th e Urban Market Gardening and selling scheme within my proposal is based on a case study that has been looked at in some depth. I chose to look at ‘Growing Communities’ based in Hackney Parks. Th ey have a two fold operation; see Figure 2-60 Growing Communities Management Model Page 26.

Th e management of the Urban Market Garden within my site will take the form between the two models in fi gure 2-28. Th e box scheme seems favourable spatially, as the planters in the central hub are a suitable size for growing salad, not vegetables. Secondly, as mentioned by the case study, salad is a high value crop, so the potential for profi t and re-investment is greater. Th irdly, the box scheme is based on selling the produce through outlets. I have designed a market/shop on the fringe of the site. Th is not only means there is a place where the produce can be sold, it will also encourage people into the site who normally wouldn’t have visited.

P R E C E D E N T - G R O W I N G C O M M U N I T I E S - H A C K N E Y

Figure 2-59 Sophie, Growing Communities Apprentice

Figure 2-61 Growing Communities Hackney Map

Figure 2-60 Growing Communities Management Model


2 . 2 S H A R E D R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S A N D V A L U E S

Security of the Market Garden

Although the proposal encourages many people to get involved with the market garden and the site of planters being so central, the risk of vandalism should already be lower than the allotment, however, there is still a threat from users both inside the site and outside. To address this issue, I have designed a planter (see fi gures 2-63-64)for the market garden that allows the crops to be locked away at night when they are not photo synthesizing. If fi nances allowed, these planters could have lights installed inside the covers to increase yield as plants only need about 1-2 hours of darkness.

Location of Market Garden

Th e planters are located in the central hub for three reasons.

Firstly, as part of the design vision: Creating an integrated community through sensory stimulation, it will engage many types of people (as is indicated in my Neighbourhood Story pictogram in Part 3) either passing by or making a concerted visit. Secondly, by being located centrally (see fi gure 2-29) it allows easy access for those in the retirement home. Th irdly, the Osney Mead Community Primary School will be able to easily access the planters for educational purposes.

Figure 2-62 Plan view of planters (not to scale)

Figure 2-63 Planter closed for night Figure 2-64 Planter open in morning

Figure 2-65 Site Plan showing location of planters in relation to the primary school and market outlet

Primaryschool

Market

Station>>>>Botley R

d>>>>

Planters

Th e fi gure above shows the relationship of the primary school and market with the urban market garden. Th ey all are integral to the success of the garden(fi g 2-65); the market provides a platform to turn a profi t on the garden, and the primary school provides education of the garden and growing to young children so that they can take over responsibilities when they are a little older. Th is education element has been adapted from the case study where ‘apprentices’ are trained up.


3 . D E M O G R A P H I C A L L Y I N C L U S I V E

PRECEDENT - ELLISTOWN PRIMARY SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY CENTRE

Indoor FacilitiesEasy Interior Access

Access RampKitchen

2 Toilets (3 Accessible)1 Baby Changing

Outdoor FacilitiesEasy Exterior AccessPicnic/Seating: c.20

Gazebo with c 20 seatsSchool playing fi eld

Outdoor facilities only available outside school hours

Figure 2-66 Ellistown Primary School and Community Centre

I wanted to combine the existing community centre with mine and the councils desire to have a new primary school in the area. Both of these facilities could be combined, like in this case study (see fi g 2-66). It would be likely that the existing community centre would have to be extended, but as the school is only in use 7am-4pm, this leaves a lot of time in the aft ernoon for other activities. Th e community centre would also go hand-in-hand with the urban market gardening proposed as they could use this as a ‘base’ for occasional meetings etc.

Design Actions (DA)

DA 1: Intermixed housing types (and tenures) to activate the area and to increase the amount of opportunities for interaction between demographic groups.DA 2: Mixed recreational areas; urban farm planters in the central hub and a playground for children. In addition the SUD/balancing pond feature allows all demographic groups to benefi t.DA 3: Primary school combined with community centre allows people without children to benefi t from the building.DA 4: Lifetime homes standard to be applied to the residential homes constructed so that they are not restricted to one type of user during the building’s life.DA 5: Retirement home situated nearest the central hub so that amenities are more accessible to older/impaired people.

Figure 2-67 Proposed primary school logo

Figure 2-68 DA1, intermixed housing types

AN ENVIRONMENT THAT PROVIDES AND PROVOKES INTERACTION OPPORTUNITIES FOR EVERY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP


In order to create a neighbourhood that is active and integrated, it is imperative that diff erent demographic groups are mixed within the site.

Figure 2-37 shows the breakdown of each of the residential types as well as the location of the Design Actions.

Th e 50% aff ordable housing provision set by Oxford City Council has nearly (43%) but not completely been achieved. Th is is mainly due to the close proximity with the city centre; it is hard to achieve the high residual land value (RLV) if aff ordable housing takes up more of the units that already specifi ed.

3 . 1 D E M O G R A P H I C A L L Y I N C L U S I V E : A F F O R D A B I L I T Y A N D T E N U R E

DA5

DA3

DA2

Figure 2-69 Site Plan showing tenure

Botley - Apartments 1 bed12%

Botley - Apartments 2 bed24%

Affordable Appartments

35%

Affordable Terraces8%

Botley - Semi-detached 3 bed

6%Botley - Terraces

15%

35%

Figure 2-70 Doughnut chart showing breakdown of affordable provision


Visual appreciations are heavily linked with how much we care to value a placeNasar (1998) identifi ed that due to this factor, people ‘liked’ environments based on fi ve criteria:

Naturalness - environments where there is a predominance of natural over build ele-ments

Upkeep/civilities - environments that are looked aft er

Openness and defi ned spaces - blending of defi ned open space with panoramas of pleasant elements

4 . A P P R O P R I A T E A N D I N T E R E S T I N G B U I L T A E S T H E T I CAN ENVIRONMENT THAT BOTH COMPLEMENTS THE LOCAL SURROUNDING BUT ALSO CREATES A UNIQUE PLACE THAT IS VISUALLY STIMULATING

Design Actions (DA)

DA 1: Buildings design with link back to Oxford (building height, materials or detailing for example)DA 2: A network of spaces between buildings with hierarchy, this increases legibility and gives the area coherence.DA 3: Variety of building types to be created. Th is will make for amore interesting aesthetic. Th ere will not be too many types otherwise it risks disneyfi cation. DA 4: Create buildings that are highly desirable/sellable. Th is may mean that more of the buildings are more traditional looking in form.

Nasar’s criteria/comparative scale

Naturalness Upkeep Openness Historical Order

Oxfordshire(large scale)

High - High High -

Oxford(mid scale)

Mid High High Very High High

Botley Road(local scale)

Mid/low Mid Low Mid Mid

Proposal aims Mid/high High Mid Mid High

Historical signifi cance/content - environ-ments that provoke favourable associations

Order - organisation, coherence, congru-ity, legibility and clarityNasar, J L (1998) Th e Evaluative Image of the City, Sage, London

As the Osney allotment site is so close to the city centre, I feel that it is appropriate to produce a design for the built elements that honours the local character, whilst being distinctive to create a sense of legibility without producing designs of complete pastiche.

In order to address the local character, I have undertaken a brief study of the surrounding environment of Oxfordshire, Oxford and Botley road using Nasar’s criteria to assess the qualities so that I can apply them to my proposal.

Oxfords Architectural style provides a design base to work from


A, A1, B, B1, D, E, K, L (3 storey, 2 bedroom fl ats)C, D1 (2 storey, 2-3 bedroom terraces)H (2 storey, 3 bedroom semi-detached)F (3 storey, 3 bedroom terraced houses)I, I1, J (3-4 storey, 1-2 bedroom fl ats, aff ordable/sheltered)

Nasar’s criteria assessment/ the

Oxfordesque

Design Code

Variety

Sellability

Distinctiveness/Legibilty

5 Building types

4 . 1 A E S T H E T I C : D E S I G N C O D E

14 5

2 3Figure 2-71 Building 1 Figure 2-72 Building 2 Figure 2-73 Building 3

Figure 2-74 Building 4 Figure 2-75 Building 5


4 . 2 U N I T B R E A K D O W N

Type Unit Letter Floors Units Bedrooms Aff ordable Flats Area m21 A (duplicate unit in plan) 4 16 2 Yes 651 B 3 6 2 yes 651 B1 3 9 1 yes 522 C 2 4 2 Yes 601 D 3 12 2 yes yes 602 D1 2 4 2 yes 602 D2 2 13 3 721 E 3 3 1 yes 621 E1 3 9 2 yes 724 F1 2 1 2 yes yes 604 G 2 7 3 yes 703 H 2.5 22 3 1205 I 4 12 2 yes 655 I1 3 15 1 yes 505 J 3 30 2 yes yes 605 K 2 7 3 yes 725 L 2 7 3 yes 72

TOTAL 177

5 1

23

4

Figure 2-76 Building mix (proportion of units per type)

Figure 2-77 Table to show details of unit types

Figure 2-76 shows the breakdown of units within the site. Th is information has been calculated based on the requirements set out in the Balance of Dwellings SPD and the Aff ordable Housing SPD.

To make it easier to compare with the aesthetic of the proposal I have included fi gure 2-77 to show the proportion of building type within the site.

Why the density?

Th e density of mainly 3-4 storeys (average over site is 53 DPH) is necessary on this site, as the location is very close to Oxford City centre, making the land value higher. To achieve a high residual land value (RLV) it is necessary to have a high density.

Figure 2-78 Illustration of the recommended residential unit mix

Figure 2-79 Site plan displaying unit types by letter


4 . 3 B U I L D I N G T Y P E 1

Design elements

Floors: 3Bedrooms: 1-2 Materials: Timber boarding or orange brick/white render/grey or neutral fenestrationDistinctiveness: Steep mono-pitched roofs, planted herb walls to link to previous site occupation.

Oxfordesque elements: Mainly in the stone material choice. Not much Oxford-orientated on this design type to provide variety on site.Basic sizes: Unit width: ~5m Unit length: 6.5-7.5m Open space provision: ~87m2 ppParking: On street

Open space is accessed through the building cores and through gates located either end of the space (ringed in pink). Th is is for the residents use only, as it backs on to the gardens of other home-owners.

‘The Contemporary Apartment’

Case Study

Marston Road Apartments, Oxford (see image)

Price: £249,000Bedrooms: 2Materials: Buff brick/white render/zinc roofGated back gardenUndercover bike storageClose to South ParkEasy links to Oxford City and LondonNo Parking provision

Figure 2-80 Unit E-E1 showing access to private open space

Figure 2-81 Unit J showing gated access to private open space

Figure 2-82 Unit E-E1 showing access to private open space

Keyed access only

Rear access through lobby to shared private open space

Figure 2-83 Type Sketch Figure 2-84 Precedent


4 . 4 B U I L D I N G T Y P E 2

Design elements

Floors: 2-3Bedrooms: 2-3Materials: Portland stone/white render/grey or neutral fenestrationDistinctiveness: Planted herb walls to link to previous site occupation.

Oxfordesque elements: One of the more Oxford-orientated housing types, the proportions and the dormer basic sizes fl irt with design features of the surrounding neighbourhood properties.Basic sizes: Unit width: ~5m Unit length: 6.5-7.5m Open space provision: ~87m2 ppParking: On street

Case Study

‘The Compact, Affordable, Traditional row house’

Private development, Bladon (see image above)

Price: £249,000Bedrooms: 2-3Materials: Buff /grey brick/brown tiled roofGated back gardenOn street parking

Figure 2-85 Street scene of Design type 2

Figure 2-87 Indicative Floor Plans

Figure 2-86 Case study - Bladon



4 . 5 B U I L D I N G T Y P E 3

Design elements

Floors: 2Bedrooms: 3 (4 with potential attic conversion)Materials: White render with buff brick.Distinctiveness: Very shallow hips fi t in with local area whilst maintaining the ability to convert the attic into accommodation.

Oxfordesque elements: Building proportions and detailing but designed in a more contemporary way.Basic sizes: Unit width: ~5.6m Unit length: 9m Private space provision: ~30m2 ppParking: On street

‘The Comfortable, Family Semi’

Figure 2-90 Street elevation of H units

Figure 2-91 Indicative Floor plans



Figure 2-94 1:200 Floor Plan

4 . 6 B U I L D I N G T Y P E 4

Design elements

Floors: 2-3Bedrooms: 2-3Materials: Portland stone/white render/grey or neutral fenestrationDistinctiveness: Planted herb walls to link to previous site occupation. Other: Balconies designed to reduce crime and to maximise space

Oxfordesque elements: Repetition of style, small setback is like many town houses in Oxford. Basic sizes: Unit width: ~13m Unit length: 6.5-7.5m Private space provision: ~87m2 ppParking: On street

‘Contemporary, fl ood-proof row houses

Figure 2-95 Front elevation of a Design type 4

Figure 2-96 Hand drawn streetscape

Figure 2-97 More fl ood-prone location



4 . 7 B U I L D I N G T Y P E 5

Design elements

Floors: 3-4Bedrooms: 1-2Materials: Portland stone/white render/grey or neutral fenestrationDistinctiveness: Community feel to the unit, many on site facilities provided but also to blend in with public facilities on site such as the waterside area.Oxfordesque elements: Materials, variety in brick and buff brickBasic sizes: Private space provision: ~8m2 ppParking: Some on street, mainly for visitors

Case Study

‘Landmark, high-rise retirement home’

Belong retirement home, Wigan (see image above)

Won ‘Best Urban Design’ from Wigan BCBedrooms: 2-3Materials: Buff /grey brick/brown tiled roofGated, safe community with village feelCycling parking providedNo car parking provision

Figure 2-100 Perspective of Unit I and I1.

Figure 2-101 Front Elevation of Units I-I1 Figure 2-102 Perspective from street level



D E S I G N S P E C I F I C S A N D S U M M A R Y

Figure 2-105 Site Plan showing shared private spaces in site

Figure 2-106 Shared private space alongside bisecting through route for pedestrians

Figure 2-107 Shared private space for Units K-L

Figure 2-108 Shared private space for Unit J

Gate

Gate

Gate

Gate

Gate

Gate

Public route

Th e diagrams on the right show in more detail the separation of public and private space for those living in fl ats.

Th e table below provides a summary of Part 2. It sums up the initial design vision linking together Sensory Experience and Integrated Community and showing how each theme is realised in spatial terms.

Th eme

1.High Levels of Social Interaction

2. Shared Responsibilities and Values

3. Demographically Inclusive

4. Appropriate and Interesting Aesthetic

Spatial Terms

Streets are connected to increase site mobility. Nodes created by larger trees, seats and paths orientated with best relationship to open space.

Urban Farm is created to provide shared responsibility for community.

Buildings arranged to incorporate diff erent tenures.

Diverse but not chaotic designs/size in dwelling. Creating mixture of small and larger open spaces

Sensory Experience

Sight/smell/sound. Visually stimulating range of paths/pedestrian routes.

Touch/sight/sound. Interaction with neighbours would evoke shared responsibility of area.

Sight. Diff erent types of people for interesting environment. For example, children playing football, mums chatting with pushchair.

People more likely to be outside if aesthetic is interesting/active/engaging.

Sensory Experience Linked with Integrated Community

^N

39 PART 3 - CENTRAL ISSUES OSNEY MEAD PROPOSAL: REPORT


Whereas Part 2 dealt with detailed design issues by theme, Part 3 will deal with issues that concern the whole design.

Part 3 - Central Issues will commence with continue from where Part 2 left off ; the aesthetic of the Landscape will be explained in detail. Th is will be followed by an investigation of how the proposal addresses Sustainability. An explanation of Sensory Richness will then follow this showing how diff erent users of the site respond to the design actions in Part 2. Finally the Economic Feasibility of the proposal will be picked apart to show why decisions have been made about unit types etc.

4 0 L A N D S C A P E T R E A T M E N T4 2 S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y ( E N E R G Y E F F I C I E N C Y )4 5 S E N S O R Y R I C H N E S S4 7 E C O N O M I C F E A S I B I L I T Y


L A N D S C A P E T R E A T M E N TDISPLAY AND COMPLIMENT THE EXISTING GREEN NETWORK TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT FEELS MORE DOMINATED BY NATURE

As mentioned in Design Th eme 4, having a dominance of natural elements over the built creates a universally more pleasant environment. Being that the site is situated on a greenfi eld site, it could be quite easy to create an environment that has a predominance of nature, however, it is more of a challenge to create spaces that many people are attracted to but also work in urban design terms.

Based initially on Gordon Cullen’s theory of the Kinaesthetic (Cullen 1961), and the drama of the juxtaposition, I have sought to create a hierarchy of open spaces so that users of the site are supplied with a variety of diff erent spaces depending on what activity they want to do. Secondly, I have sought to make routes through the public space as interesting and engaging as possible, this is partly to create a sensory stimulating environment. Th e site contains diff erent types of landscaping that can be categorised into the following:

PrivateMany trees and shrubs are placed within private gardens as the maintenance cost to the site will be reduced as the owners are responsible for them. See fi gure 3-112

Shared PrivatePredominantly grassland, the shared private area has main routes though it which are paved to make winter access pleasant. In addition the space is appropriate for all times of year as it is sheltered from the wind by the surrounding properties.Public Open Space and Urban Market GardensTh e central hub area constitutes most of the built site’s public open space. Here (as mentioned in the

design themes) I have created a demographically inclusive environment. Th ere are places to stop and stay, play areas for children, visually and physical connection with the water front area, and the urban market gardens. Th e urban market gardens, apart from providing a sustainable source of organic salad, it act as micro-nodes. Based on Jan Gehl’s theory - something happens when something happens (Gehl 2010), when one person is using one of the planters, it would be anticipated that this would cause communication/interaction between diff erent users of the site - therefore satisfying my overall design vision of community interaction through sensory stimulation.

AllotmentsA part of the site that has been reserved for existing allotment users. I would hope that over time, the allotment users see how the urban market garden works and thus demanding the expansion of the current scheme.

PublicTh e central hub area as shown on page 41 combines a mixture of surfaces and trees. Th e basic principle for this open space has been derived from the basic urban design principles set out at the start of the report (see fi g 3-111). I have created an area that provides a hierarchy of open spaces and certainly makes the routes interesting (fi g 3-109) through the waterside area, a bridge, an interactive board and connecting pedestrian footpaths.

Figure 3-110 Engaging with waterfront: Man crossing bridge over swale

Figure 3-112 3D image showing tree network in private gardens

Figure 3-109 Make Routes Interesting

Figure 3-111 Hierarchy of open spaces


L A N D S C A P E T R E A T M E N T

In order to retain the predominance of nature, the design of the road of quite important as this is the largest mass of a non-natural surface:Shared surfaces were designed in the central hub area for several reasons; fi rstly it promotes a safer environment as endorsed by Manual for Streets. Secondly, it allows the design of one area to blend into the next, this will encourage the site user to move through the spaces. Although shared surfaces were adopted in the design, there are certainly diff erent materials being used. Th is is to allow the pedestrian and driver to distinguish the separate areas. Figure 3-116 shows the diff erent street materials and what they achieve.

Figure 3-113 Waterside

Figure 3-114 Road

Figure 3-115 UMG Figure 3-116 Site plan showing surfaces

Trees

Using the Ozone index and ‘Trees and Urban Air Quality’ by Nick Hewitt (Hewitt 2010) to aid my decision; I have decided that Raywood Ash and Silver Birch will make up the majority of trees in the public and private spaces. Th is is because they are colourful, less dense, reducing leaf-drop, however still provide shade and improvements to air quality.For more poignant locations; larger trees that provide shelter have been selected (Field and Norway Maples) as they have more of a ‘presence’ and can act as natural nodes.

Figure 3-117 Benefi ts and drawbacks of urban trees

Figure 3-118 Urban Tree Air Quality Score Groups

Figure 3-119 Raywood Ash

Figure 3-120 Silver Birch Figure 3-121 Nodal Tree: Field Maple

Permeable, compressed gravel immediately abutting the swale so that

run-off or fl ood water can drain back to the water table

By having small block paving, the drivers feel the eff ect of their speed

more, slowing them down. Removing road markings also reduces speed.

Grass-blocks have been chosen as the surface underneath the urban market gardens as it will change colour with the seasons and also increases the presence of nature within the central hub

^N


S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

SU

NP

AT

H D

IAG

RA

M

Summary of sustainable design decisions:

MACROMaximised solar gain through spatial layout of site.Car Share Scheme

MICROMicro hydro power in balancing pond/swale.PV’s applied to higher (3 fl oors or more) units.Grey water recycling in most units.Urban Market GardeningSolar Trees

CREATE AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT WHERE SOLAR GAIN IS MAXIMISED THROUGH SPATIAL DECISIONS AND RENEWABLES ARE CONSIDERED WHEN POSSIBLE

Figure 3-122 July 9am Figure 3-123 December 9am

Figure 3-124 July 4pm Figure 3-125 December 4pm

Sun Angle AnalysisTh e fi gures 3-122-125 show which parts of the site are in shade depending on the time of day and year. It is important to note that the central waterside areas is completely shade-free during daylight hours no matter what time of year. Th is is vital if the area is to stay active throughout the seasons. One area of the site that hasn’t quite achieved the desired result is shown in Figure 3-124 in the south-west corner: Th e shared private open space is shaded in the aft ernoon as the building in front of it is 3-4 storeys. All the streets are wide enough so many of them are in shade but the buildings addressing them are not. Th is is shown in more precise terms in the section on page 42.

^N


S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

Micro hydro-power is proposed at the join between the swale and the balancing pond. Th is is for two reasons; 1. It generates a large amount of electricity and is a renewable resource. 2. It will increase the pleasant noise of the river which will enhance the sensory experience.

Figure 3-126 shows the PV’s on top of the retirement building (I1). As mentioned on the previous page, these would only be located on 3+ storey buildings so that they can: Reduce potential of overshadowing by other buildings, and to prevent them being seen from ground level.

Grey-water recycling. Unlike many other grey-water recycling systems, the ‘Sloan aqus’ system proposed for most of the units is simple, cheap and saves about 30% of

Figure 3-126 PV’s on unit I1

Figure 3-128 Sloan Aqus Greywater system Figure 3-129 Urban Market Gardening

Figure 3-127 Location of Hydro-power turbine

water in the household. See fi gure 3-128.

Urban Market GardeningAlthough this cuts down considerably on food miles, it is not enough alone to sustain a site of this size. Th erefore it’s impact is limited in terms of sustainability, however, assuming the scheme is profi table, potential to expand the operation would be encouraged and resulting in a more sustainable resource.

Solar Trees.Instead of lampposts, I have specifi ed solar trees, which are essentially solar powered lampposts that are aesthetically superior to standard lampposts. Th is will reduce the sensory experience for the pedestrian and slow down traffi c as they are low level. (see them in plan on fi gure 3-127)

Figure 3-130 1:200 Dimensioned section through central hub


S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y - T R A N S P O R T S T R A T E G Y

Also one of the design themes, reduction in car usage and promotion of cycling and walking will not only increase the amount of opportunities for stopping, staying and interacting, it also reduces the amount of cars in the site and creates a more pedestrian dominated area.

As the movement plan (fi g 3-134) shows on the right, the pedestrian and cyclist has many more routes available to them than the car thus encouraging pedestrians.

Th e car parking provision in this site is 0.8 per dwelling (average). For higher occupancy dwellings (4, 3 and some 2 bedroom) this fi gure is higher. Th e parking provision could be higher as there is room for more cars, but in order to activate this site the decision has been made to promote the use of a car share club; this would involve cars being used to share commutes; they would also have allocated spaces more conveniently placed to promote the club further.

Cyclists have been encouraged into this site through the design of cycle routes around the central hub. Th ey also have shortcuts available to them and not to cars. Th e cyclists are protected from cars by the planting of trees in between the cycle lane and the shared surface. Th is can be seen on the 1:200 plan on page 25.

Figure 3-131 Car club

Figure 3-132 Promoting walking

Figure 3-133 Site is designed for cyclists Figure 2-134 Movement plan

^N


Summary of sensory richness design decisions:

Water Wanting to engage as many people as possible with the waterfront, the water is felt through many senses; sight, sound, touch and smell. Sight - A footpath has been located either side of the water, with hard, shared surfaces fl anking and buildings overlooking. Th is increases the amount of exposure that the water has within the site. Sound/smell - As mentioned on the previous page, the hydro-power turbine combined with the rocky slope into the balancing pond will increase the soundscape of the central hub. On top of this, a fountain has been situated in the middle of the bridge; its pressure is dictated by the weather. When the forecast is for rain, the fountain pressure reaches heights of 7m, when the forecast is dry it stays at a low 4 metres from the waterline. Th e rationale behind this was so that it emphasises the link with the urban market gardeners, so they can see from their planters what weather is forecast and plan their gardening accordingly.

Activity:

Interactive boardBased on a case study I found on a trip to Copenhagen: Visitors and residents to the site can use an interactive screen to socialise through the community website. Th is would link in very well to the Urban Market Gardens as well; they could upload photos of things they’ve grown etc thus binding the community together.

SeatingAs the site plans show, I have used a mixture of outdoor seating types. On the fringes of the central hub, organic-looking benches with plants

growing out of the central of them have been located, (see Figure 2-51 DA 2, Natural Bench Page 23). Th e advantage of this is that it creates opportunities for interaction, as well as decreasing the amount of street furniture on the site. Th e other type of bench, is a rolling bench also featured on page 23 where the bench can be rolled to get a dry patch, thus creating a seat that can be used all through the year.

PlaygroundAs the site plan, children’s play areas have been located amongst other engaging objects within the central hub (namely the urban market garden) this is so there is more community integration (as per my design vision).

S E N S O R Y R I C H N E S SUSE WATER, ACTIVITY AND NATURE TO MAXIMISE THE SENSORY EXPERIENCE IN THE SITE AREA

7mh: Wet outlook

4mh: Dry outlook

Figure 3-135 Plan of bridge with fountain

Figure 3-136 Perspective of people enjoying fountain

Figure 3-137 Interactive Boards

Figure 3-138 Children’s play area

^N


S E N S O R Y R I C H N E S STh is diagram shows a cross section of the neighbourhood (far left column) referenced with the senses. Each one of these pictures represents one of my design actions across all the themes. Th e diagram proves how all the design actions activate diff erent senses depending on which section of society you are from.


E C O N O M I C F E A S I B I L I T Y

Th e target land value per hectare for this area of Oxford is £4m. Th is has been achieved and surpassed due to the density that I have chosen and the sites proximity with central Oxford.

Using prudence with the estimations, house prices were calculated using Right-move.com and the OCC website. Th is means that profi ts are never anticipated but they are expected. Th e prices were taken from appropriate properties around the Botley area.

For the costings, SPONS 2011 used and site works were infl ated due to the amount of groundworks (for anti-fl ood measures) that would have to be completed here.

Th e 50% aff ordable housing provision set by OCC has nearly been met. It has not quite been achieved because the Osney Mead allotment site has to maximise the RLV to off set the huge cost outlay from the Station Square development. Reaching 43% is nearly enough to satisfy the OCC criteria while making the Station Square development viable.

Figure 3-139 House on Botley Road

Figure 3-140 Average House Price in Oxford City Council Housing Strategy

Figure 3-141 Results of feasibility spreadsheet

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

This figure might be around 3, ±15% total fees.............. £2,130,9123.58 tot STF% excl land £926,947

tot voids exc land £624,464Net Residential Density 53.64 totdevcost exc land £21,439,922 43%as dwellings per hectare land value a profit £9,012,040

STF% on lan totdevcost+profit £30,451,962£22,560,038

99

100

101

102

103

£22,560,038£1,288,944

residual present value of land. . . . . . . £21,271,093land value/hectare........ £6,445,786

£1.7m /ha

£6.9m /ha

£7.3m /ha 43% affordable

38% affordable

25% affordable

Increased aff. Flats by 19

Units in area increased by

100%

177.00

Th e spreadsheet sample here on the right and below shows the process when trying to increase the RLV. When I took the project on from Studio I, I only achieved 72 units on the 3.3 Ha parcel. Realising the need to considerably increase this fi gure, I increased the density to fi nally achieve 43% aff ordable but still making £6.45m per hectare.

£6.45m/ha

158.00

80.00


E C O N O M I C F E A S I B I L I T Y

117 DPH

117 DPH

34 DPH

73 DPH50 DPH

Th e total net residential density for the whole masterplan is 50 dwellings per hectare. Th is result shows a relatively low density has been achieved. Th e reason for this is because the station square development does not have any residential units on it, and that fi gure is averaged over all the parcels including open space.

Over the Studio II Osney Mead parcel, the density is 53 D.P.H. Over the studio I parcel this was considerably less because the area was nearly 8 Ha and there were many more semi-detached units. To rectify this I have increased the amount of fl ats.

Th e minimum recommended densities at national level, as specifi ed in Planning Policy Statement 3 stand at 30D.P.H. Oxford City Council have higher recommended a minimum density requirement of 40 D.P.H, suggesting higher densities of at least 60 D.P.H in city centre locations.

Th ese targets have been met at the site at Botley Road. As the fi gure on the right shows, the density varies depending on location within the site. Th e area nearest the centre are denser because they have more prominent location within the site and the amount of units overlooking the waterside has been maximised. Although this density is high, it is appropriate for the location and helps to meet Oxford’s growing housing demand.

^N


5 0 C O N C L U S I O N5 1 R E F L E C T I O N5 2 P I C T U R E C R E D I T S5 2 B I B L I O G R A P H Y5 3 A P P E N D I X


C O N C L U S I O N A N D S W O T O F P R O P O S A L

Th e proposal presented in this report combines; a priority for community interaction with high levels of sensory experience and beauty through enhancing the sites natural characteristics and sustainability. Th e initial questions raised at the start of the report have been answered through the design process presented. Th e design foundations set from Studio I have been achieved, then adjusted and strengthened for this Studio II project.

In reference to the Studio I design themes, the Osney Mead proposal has created a design that: 1. Responds to the landscape. 2. Th at is sustainability conscious. 3. Created an environment that can be lived in with the risk of fl ooding.

Th e design themes for Studio II, although diff erent, were created with the knowledge of the existing themes, while focussing more on the psychological impression of the site upon site users. Th ese were: High Levels of Social Interaction, Shared Responsibilities and Values, Demographically Inclusive and Appropriate and Interesting Aesthetic.

High levels of social interaction have been created through connecting streets within the site and creating a central hub that acts as a focal point containing places to stop and stay.

Shared responsibilities primarily comes through the landscape. Most the Urban Market Gardens off er the opportunity to work towards community goals, but also like in the ‘Triangle’ case study, resident upkeep of the landscape should not just reduce crime but really bond the community together.

A demographic inclusive proposal has been created through strategic placement of diff erent

Strengths:

1. Brought in and celebrated the water as more of an engaging feature rather than a fl ood counter-measure.2. Incorporated and integrated community together through thoughtful selection of tenure and more micro and detailed aspects. 3. Created a plausible Urban Market Gardening scheme that could work well and integrate the community further.4. Central hub attracting many types of people through stimulating many senses, and making an engaging environment

Weaknesses:

1. Overall shape of blocks although contributing to Cullen’s theory of serial vision, may decrease legibility as they are all of a curved origin.2. Th e link to the river, other than a path, is not as pronounced as it could be.3. Th e privacy of the ground fl oor rooms in the sheltered accommodation block (I and I1) is poor.

Opportunities:

1. Th e Urban Market Garden, assuming it’s successful, could expand into the larger open space to increase the volume of market produce.2. As the buildings have been designed to lifetime homes standards, they have the ability to be adapted to suit the owner requirements.

Th reats:

1. Flooding over the capacity of the swale and balancing pond

housing types and tenures. Th is means that not only does a wider variety of people interact, but the site is activated for longer. One aspect of this theme that I feel casts huge merit towards the scheme is the inclusion of the retirement home. Th is engages a part of society that is getting larger and catering for these peoples needs is vital.

An appropriate and interesting aesthetic has been achieved through the analysis of Nasar’s (1998) objectives and investigating the style of architecture in Oxford to inform but NOT dictate the design within the Osney Mead proposal. Five building types were proposed that provided a variety in aesthetic and size to cater for as many residents as possible.

Th rough the use of the urban design principals set out at the start of the report, the landscape has been treated as an integral part of the proposal. At every decision I have striven to create an active environment that stimulates the senses. In particular, the proposal has been successful in creating a plan more dominated by nature that celebrates the existing site merits (the large expanses of the grassland and the river).

In order to create an energy effi cient scheme, I have specifi ed a mixture of large and small scale products that can be applied to the site. On one hand simple measures such as grey water recycling and a car share scheme are likely to be feasible due to low cost (small payback) and the benefi ts reaped in the subsequent years. On the other hand the measures such as the solar trees are likely to be more contentious as they have a large visual impact on the landscape.

Lastly, the proposal has been proven to be feasible. Th e spreadsheet calculations have provided an easy way to change housing types to maximise the

RLV and to off set the cost-centres of the whole scheme elsewhere within the site.

I have completed a SWOT Analysis of the fi nal scheme so that acknowledgement is given to decisions that worked well and to those which worked less well:


R E F L E C T I O N

Concluding statement

As an Architecture student, I have found this project one of the most rewarding that I have

ever completed. I have used and applied the Urban Design knowledge acquired throughout the course in every design

decision and as a result I feel confi dent to go and design real-life schemes in the future. I have created a proposal to be proud of

using a design process I feel very comfortable with. Th e fi nal outcome addressed a variety

of issues that a new development in this part of Oxford would face. Th e proposal

has addressed the challenges set out in the introduction and using the information learned throughout the year, I believe a

highly thoughtful, pragmatic and creative design has been achieved; creating a new neighbourhood that engages the residents

on multiple levels both with each other and with the environment.

Figure 4-142 3D model of what the riverside area could look like

Figure 4-143 Sketch plan of Unit I/I1 (retirement block) showing privacy boundary

In reaction to some of the weaknesses identifi ed in the fi nal SWOT on page 50, I have completed a few extra designs on how these issues would be addressed.

Figure 4-143 shows a sketch plan of Block I/I1. Th is it to address the poor privacy issue that the ground fl oor bedrooms have in that unit. It is especially important, as this vulnerable category of site users are likely to spend considerably more time in their rooms than average. A landscaped barrier has been erected in front of the front facade. In conjunction with new french doors, this creates a private buff er that not only activates that area more, but it also screens the rooms for privacy.

Figure 4-142 shows an 3D image showing what the riverside area of the site to the north could look like. As set out in the studio 1 themes, ‘a healthy and active lifestyle’ has been addressed here by installing outdoor gym equipment (pictured in the foreground). With a network of paths, this is likely to activate a much larger site that would not normally be used.

What I would do with more time.I would look in detail at how the Urban Market Garden could be expanded to increase output so that eventually the entire community could be provided for. 2. I would design another style of semi detached house. Realistically just the one type isn’t enough for 11 units, there would have to be 4-5 types to create real variety. 3. I would investigate additional ways to encourage people into the site, although the streets provide useful connections, I think another use (possibly retail) could entice more people to come into the site.


P I C T U R E C R E D I T SFigure 1-1 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Drawing out the design principals Page 6Figure 1-2 Dept for Transport. 2007. Manual for Streets. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/manualforstreets Page 7Figure 1-3 English Partnerships. 2000. Urban Design Compendium. http://www.rudi.net/pages/8758 Page 7Figure 1-4 Oxford City Council. 2011. Oxford Core Strategy. http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/Core_Strategy_occw.htm Page 7Figure 1-5 Oxford City Council. 2011. Oxford Local Plan. http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/Oxford_Local_Plan_occw.htm. Page 7Figure 1-6 Oxford City Council. 2011. West End AAP. http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/West_End_AAP_occw.htm. Page 7Figure 1-7 Davis Langdon. SPONS 2011. www.davislangdon.com Page 7Figure 1-8 London Development Agency. 2010. London Housing Design Guide.www. homesdesign.wordpress.com/london-housing/ Page 7Figure 1-9 Oxford City Council. 2012. Aff ordable Housing SPD. www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/Supplementary_Planning_Documents_occw.htm Page 7Figure 1-10 Greenfi eld. T.2012.Studio 1 Masterplan with Studio II overlay Page 8Figure 1-11 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Attractive Water Source Page 9Figure 1-12 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Connecting Roads Page 9Figure 1-13 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Prominent Natural Environment Page 9Figure 1-14 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Studio 1 Plan with Strengths and Opportunities Marked Page 9Figure 1-15 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Section through Studio 1 Plan Central zone Page 10Figure 1-16 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Studio 1 Plan with Weaknesses and Th reats Marked Page 10Figure 1-17 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Studio II Site Plan Page 11Figure 1-18 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Studio II complete group site plan Page 12

Figure 2-19 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Osney Allotments Page 14Figure 2-20 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Botley Road Page 14Figure 2-21 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. River at site Page 14Figure 2-23 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Diagram: Various Images Page 15Figure 2-24 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Open Space Page 16Figure 2-25 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. River Page 16Figure 2-26 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Allotments Page 16Figure 2-27 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Community Centre Page 16Figure 2-28 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Housing abutting site tightly Page 16Figure 2-29 Google Inc. 2012. Google Earth Image of Site. www.google.com/maps Page 16Figure 2-30 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Existing Recreational Facilities Page 16Figure 2-31 Google Inc. 2012. Google Earth Image of Site and concept overlay. www.google.com/maps Page 17Figure 2-32 Greenfi eld, T. 2012Connections Page 17Figure 2-33 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Blocks Page 17Figure 2-34 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Connections, blocks and types Page 17Figure 2-35 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Hierarchy of Open spaces Page 18Figure 2-36 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Make Routes interesting Page 18Figure 2-37 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Identifi able Entrances Page 18Figure 2-38 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Overshadowing Page 18Figure 2-39 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Public Area Focus Page 18Figure 2-40 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Hierarchy of connected spaces Page 18Figure 2-41 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Intermixed housing types Page 18Figure 2-42 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Places to stop and sit Page 18Figure 2-43 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. 3D site model showing central hub and surrounding blocks Page 19Figure 2-44 Diagram: Various Images Page 21Figure 2-45 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Movement Diagram Page 22Figure 2-46 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. DA 2, Hierarchy of hub and nodes to encourage movement Page 22Figure 2-47 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. DA 1, Connected streets increase activity Page 22Figure 2-48 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Initial sketch of hub area Page 23Figure 2-49 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. CAD Plan with Interaction overlay Page 23Figure 2-50 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. DA 4, Interactive screen at the central hub Page 23

Figure 2-51 Calogero, C. 2009. DA 2, Natural Bench. http://www.homesqu.com/tag/outdoor-bench Page 23Figure 2-52 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. DA 3, having a focus to a public space gives it atmosphere Page 23Figure 2-53 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. DA 1,2,3, places to stop and sit Page 23Figure 2-54 Bowman,R. 2005. DA 2, Bike bike-rack. http://lawrencebikeproject.wikispaces.com/ Page 23Figure 2-55 Link Magazine. 2009. Hab Oakus development - Swindon Triangle Plan. http://www.swindonlink.com/news/kevin-mcclouds-grand-design-gets-go-ahead Page 24Figure 2-56 Hab Oakus. 2010. Swindon Triangle and Kevin McCloud. http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/nov/19/kevin-mccloud-housing-triangle-swindon Page 24Figure 2-57 Go Car. DA3, Car Share. http://gocarshare.com/ Page 24Figure 2-58 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. 1:200 of Central hub Page 25Figure 2-59 Growing Communities. 2012. Sophie, Growing Communities Apprentice. http://www.growingcommunities.org Page 26Figure 2-60 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Growing Communities Management Model Page 26Figure 2-61 Communities. 2010. Growing Communities Hackney Map. www.growingcommunities.org Page 26Figure 2-62 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Plan view of planters (not to scale) Page 27Figure 2-63 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Planter closed for night Page 27Figure 2-64 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Planter open in morning Page 27Figure 2-65 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Site Plan showing location of planters in relation to the primary school and market outlet Page 27Figure 2-66 Ellistown Primary School and Community Centre. 2003. http://www.school-portal.co.uk Page 28Figure 2-67 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Proposed primary school logo Page 28Figure 2-68 DA1, intermixed housing types Page 28Figure 2-69 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Site Plan showing tenure Page 29Figure 2-70 Greenfi eld, T. 2012. Doughnut chart showing breakdown of aff ordable provision Page 29Figure 2-71 North Oxford Property. 2011. Building 1. http://www.nops.co.uk. Page 31Figure 2-72 David Parker Architects. 2009. Building 2. www.davidparkerarchitects.co.uk Page 31Figure 2-73 David Parker Architects. 2009. Building 3. www.davidparkerarchitects.co.uk Page 31Figure 2-74 Modern Chicago Homes. 2011 Building 4. /www.modernchicagohomes.com Page 31Figure 2-75 Pozzini. 2011. Building 5. www.pozzoni.co.uk/sectors/older-people/belong-wigan/ Page 31Figure 2-76 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Building mix (proportion of units per type) Page 32Figure 2-77 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Table to show details of unit types Page 32Figure 2-78 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Illustration of the recommended residential unit mix Page 32Figure 2-79 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Site plan displaying unit types by letter Page 32Figure 2-80 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Unit E-E1 showing access to private open space Page 33Figure 2-81 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Unit J showing gated access to private open space Page 33Figure 2-82 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Unit E-E1 showing access to private open space Page 33Figure 2-83 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Type Sketch Page 33Figure 2-84 North Oxford Property. 2011. Precedent. http://www.nops.co.uk. Page 33Figure 2-85 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Street scene of Design type 2 Page 34Figure 2-86 David Parker Architects. 2009. Case study -Bladon. www.davidparkerarchitects.co.uk Page 34Figure 2-87 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Indicative Floor Plans Page 34Figure 2-88 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Type Sketch Page 34Figure 2-89 David Parker Architects. 2009. Precedent. www.davidparkerarchitects.co.uk. Page 34Figure 2-90 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Street elevation of H units Page 35Figure 2-91 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Indicative Floor plans Page 35Figure 2-92 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Type Sketch Page 35Figure 2-93 David Parker Architects. 2009. Precedent. www.davidparkerarchitects.co.uk. Page 35Figure 2-94 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. 1:200 Floor Plan Page 36Figure 2-95 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Front elevation of a Design type 4 Page 36Figure 2-96 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Hand drawn streetscape Page 36Figure 2-97 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. More fl ood-prone location Page 36Figure 2-98 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Type Sketch Page 36Figure 2-99 Modern Chicago Homes. 2011. Precedent. www.modernchicagohomes.com Page 36Figure 2-100 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Perspective of Unit I and I1. Page 37Figure 2-101 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Front Elevation of Units I-I1 Page 37Figure 2-102 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Perspective from street level Page 37Figure 2-103 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Type Sketch Page 37Figure 2-104 Pozzini. 2011. Precedent. www.pozzoni.co.uk/sectors/older-people/belong-wigan/ Page 37


Figure 2-105 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Site Plan showing shared private spaces in site Page 38Figure 2-106 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Shared private space alongside bisecting through route for pedestrians Page 38Figure 2-107 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Shared private space for Units K-L Page 38Figure 2-108 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Shared private space for Unit J Page 38Figure 2-108 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Shared private space for Unit J Page 38

Figure 3-109 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Make Routes Interesting Page 40Figure 3-110 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Engaging with waterfront: Man crossing bridge over swale Page 40Figure 3-111 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Hierarchy of open spaces Page 40Figure 3-112 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. 3D image showing tree network in private gardens Page 40Figure 3-113 Pebble Pave. 2009. Waterside. http://www.pebblepave.com.au/666_csupload_32617225. Page 41Figure 3-114 GD Bass. 2009. Road. http://gdbass.neteffi ciency.co.uk/uploads/Newbury_Shared_Street_ Page 41Figure 3-115 HomeZooka. 2006. UMG. http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz25/homezooka Page 41Figure 3-116 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Site plan showing surfaces Page 41Figure 3-117 Hewitt, N. 2009. Benefi ts and drawbacks of urban trees Page 41Figure 3-118 Hewitt, N. 2009. Urban Tree Air Quality Score Groups Page 41Figure 3-119 British Trees. 2004. Raywood Ash. www.britishtrees.co.uk Page 41Figure 3-120 Stuart, S. 2008. Silver Birch. http://www.sxc.hu/photo/803952 Page 41Figure 3-121 Visual Photos. 2006. Nodal Tree: Field Maple. http://www.visualphotos.com/image Page 41Figure 3-122 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. July 9am Page 42Figure 3-123 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. December 9am Page 42Figure 3-124 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. July 4pm Page 42Figure 3-125 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. December 4pm Page 42Figure 3-126 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. PV’s on unit I1 Page 43Figure 3-127 Location of Hydro-power turbine Page 43Figure 3-128 Inhabitat. 2009. Sloan Aqus Greywater system. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/gardeningadvice/6249948/How-to-grow-winter-salads-in-a-box.html Page 43Figure 3-129 Buckley, J. 2011. Urban Market Gardening. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/gardeningadvice/6249948/How-to-grow-winter-salads-in-a-box.html Page 43Figure 3-130 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Dimensioned section through central hub Page 43Figure 3-131 Metro. 2012. Car club. http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/26/article-1282830824935-0AED569E000005DC-152263_466x310.jpg Page 44Figure 3-132 Blog Spot. 2012.Promoting walking. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yyWBy-TORTo/T3HRqB2KTYI/AAAAAAAAAGc/Z4pKhTh jWTY/s1600/daily+walking+may+reduce+risk+of+type+2+diabet Page 44Figure 3-133 Going Bike. 2005. Site is designed for cyclists. http://www.goinggoingbike.com Page 44Figure 3-135 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Plan of bridge with fountain Page 45Figure 3-136 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Perspective of people enjoying fountain Page 45Figure 3-137 Blog Spot. 2009. Interactive Boards.http://digital-examples.blogspot.co.uk/2011_02 Page 45Figure 3-138 John, L. 2008. Children’s Play Area. http://johnl.org/fi les/2009/10/playground1_large. Page 45Figure 3-139 Rightmove. 2012. Botley Road House. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-21981531.html Page 47Figure 3-140 Oxford City Council. 2011. Average House Price in Oxford City Council Housing Strategy. www.oxford.gov.uk Page 47Figure 3-141 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Results of feasibility spreadsheet Page 47

Figure 4-142 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. 3D model of what the riverside area could look like Page 51Figure 4-143 Greenfi eld,T. 2012. Sketch plan of Unit I/I1 (retirement block) showing privacy boundary Page 51


B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public Places, Urban Spaces. Oxford: Architectural Press.Clarke, R., & Mayhew, P. (1980). Desiging out Crime. London: Her Majestys Stationary Offi ce.Corbusier, L. (1927; 1973). Th e Charter of Athens. London: Penguin Putnam.Cullen, G. (1961). A Concise Townscape. Butterworth-Heinemann.Department for Transport (2007) Manual for Streets. London. Her Majestys Stationary Offi ceEvans. (2006). Common Ground. Urban Design , 31-33.Frers, L., & Meier, L. (2007). Encountering Urban Places. Aldershot: Ashgate.Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press.Gehl, J. (2001). Life Between Buildings. Copenhagen: Th e Danish Architectural Press.Gehl, J., & Gemzoe, L. (1996). Public Spaces, Public Life. Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press.Hague, & Jenkins. (2004). Place Identity, Participation and Planning. New York: Routledge.Hazan, J. (1978). Th e Treatment of Aesthetics in Urban Planning. London: Polytechnic of Central London School of Environment Planning Unit.Hewitt, N (2010) Trees and urban air quality: Birmingham as a case study. University of Lancaster. www.es.lancs.ac.uk/people/cnh/UrbanTreesBrochure.pdf. Accessed 13/4/12Lucas, R. and Romice, O. (2008) Representing Sensory Experience in Urban Design. Design principles and Practices – An International journal. Vol 2.Lynch, K. (1960). Th e Image of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Oxford City Council Housing Strategy (2008 to 2012 / Forward to 2020) cited at: http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/75541OxfordCityCouncilHousingStrategy20082011FINAL.pdf Accessed on 15/03/12Oxford Local Plan (2005) Cited at: http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/Oxford_Local_Plan_occw.htm Accessed on 12/03/12Secure By Design (2010) New Homes Cited at: http://www.securedbydesign.com/pdfs/SBD_New_Homes_2010.pdf Accessed 08/03/12


A P P E N D I X

I N D I C A T I V E F L O O R P L A N S ( N O T T O S C A L E )

H


A P P E N D I X

D2

J


A P P E N D I X

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

A B C D E F G H

Financial Feasibility Spreadsheet, to explore residual valuation.FILE NAME:..............… e.g. your name/date/number (edited by JC) edited 19/10/2010

Residential numbers, areas and values (VAL1) type numbers in shaded areas

Type UNIT NUMBER NETT GROSS SALES sub- Value / M2area m2 of UNITS area m2 area m2 PRICE TOTALS

Botley - Apartments 1 bed 50 21 1050.0 1050.0 £240,000.00 £5,040,000.00 £4,800Botley - Apartments 2 bed 70 37 2590.0 2590.0 £240,000.00 £8,880,000.00 £3,429Botley - Semi-detached 3 bed 100 22 2200.0 2200.0 £600,000.00 £13,200,000.00 £6,000Botley - Terraces 70 25 1750.0 1750.0 £420,000.00 £10,500,000.00 £6,000Affordable Appartments 50 58 2900.0 3480.0 £192,000.00 £11,136,000.00 £3,200Affordable Terraces 80 14 1120.0 1344.0 £304,000.00 £4,256,000.00 £3,167

Total units 177.00 SUM(VAL1). . . . . . . . . . . . . £53,012,000Residential Building Costs (BCOST1)Type cost/m2 COST (based on GROSS AREAS)Oxpens - Apartments 1 Bed £0.00 £0.00Oxpens - Apartments 2 Beds £0.00 £0.00Oxpens - 2 storey £0.00 £0.00Oxpens - 3 storey £0.00 £0.00Botley - Apartments £950.00 £2,460,500.00Botley - Semi-detached £1,300.00 £2,860,000.00Botley - 3 storey terraces £950.00 £1,662,500.00Affordable Appartments £900.00 £3,132,000.00Affordable Terraces £750.00 £1,008,000.00

Value divided by costsShop Apartments £900.00 £0.00 This figure might be around 3, ±15%Station Terraces £1,200.00 £0.00 4.77Student Accomodation £1,025.00 £0.00SUM (BCOST1) £11,123,000.00

Commercial numbers, areas and values (VAL2)TYPE NETT GROSS RENT/M2 RENTROLL YLD% sub-

M/2 M/2 by zone TOTALSRetail- Oxpens & Botley zone A 0 165.00 0 7.50 0Retail- Oxpens & Botley zone B 0 82.50 0 7.50 0Retail - Oxpens & Botley zone c 0 41.25 0 7.50 0

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Retail - Park End zone A 0 0.00 0 7.00 0Retail - Park End zone B 0 0.00 0 7.00 0Retail - Park End zone C 0 0.00 0 7.00 0offices - Oxpens 0 0.00 0 8.00 0offices - Botley 0 110.00 0 8.00 0offices - Park End & Worcester 0 0.00 0 6.50 0Restaurants/Cafes 0 0.00 0 7.00 0Conference Centre 0 0.00 0 7.00 0

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

Hotel Extension 0 0.00 0 7.00 0Primary School 855 nil nil 0.00 0New Station Square nil nil 0.00 0Lake and Swales 600 nil nil 0.00 0Park End Street 0 nil nil 0.00 0The Retreat 0 nil nil 0.00 0The Leisure Quarter 0 nil nil 0.00 0Bus Station 0 0.00 0 6.50 0Train Station 0 0.00 0 6.50 0

SUM(VAL2). . . . . . . . . £0b/f(VAL1). . . . . . . £53,012,000Total val. . . . . . . £53,012,000

Commercial Building Costs (BCOST2) VariablesTYPE COST/m2 Construction

m/2 COSTRetail- Oxpens & Botley zone A 800 600000 ..........(with example inputs)Retail- Oxpens & Botley zone B 0 0 contract,years 1.50Retail - Oxpens & Botley zone c 0 0 prof. fees%......... 12.00Retail - Park End zone A 0 0 STF.,base rate+3%....... 6.00Retail - Park End zone B 0 0 voids,in years...... 0.50Retail - Park End zone C 0 0 siteworks %......... 20.00offices - Oxpens 0 return risk+profit%.............. 17.00offices - Botley STF.,land. base+1%..... 6.00offices - Park End & Worcester 0 site area m2...?......... 33,000Restaurants/Cafes 0 0Conference Centre 0 RESERVED LANDHotel Extension 0 private sector special projectsPrimary School 1,000 855000 hotel, cinema, etc.. ........m2New Station Square 0 Sports CentreLake and Swales 3,700 2220000 Art GalleryPark End Street 0 Swimming PoolThe Retreat 0 Ice RinkThe Leisure Quarter Square 0 Fire StationBus Station 0 Tests,% of GDVTrain Station 0 tot reservd land m2 0 total bcost2 3,675,000 b/f bcost1 11,123,000 RESULTS(fixed formulae) 33% total bcost 14,798,000

total value........... £53,012,000totbcost & stwks £17,757,600

Total Value divided by Total Bld Costs total siteworks........ £2,959,60093

94

95

96

97

98

99

This figure might be around 3, ±15% total fees.............. £2,130,9123.58 tot STF% excl land £926,947

tot voids exc land £624,464Net Residential Density 53.64 totdevcost exc land £21,439,922 43%as dwellings per hectare land value a profit £9,012,040

STF% on lan totdevcost+profit £30,451,962£22,560,038

99

100

101

102

103

£22,560,038£1,288,944

residual present value of land. . . . . . . £21,271,093land value/hectare........ £6,445,786

F I N A L F E A S I B I L I T Y S P R E A D S H E E T

