Over the six weeks of the Festival of York Central and York Central Exhibition at the National Railway Museum we’ve been exploring the plans and possibilities for York Central. Each week we produced Open Briefing documents. We have now drawn out and synthesized the discussions into a Vision for York Central, with a very short summary Big Ideas document, and a set of Principles of how York Central can be developed in the next stages.
This document has been drawn together from community engagement through the Festival of York Central, largely through:-
Feedback through Post-Its at the exhibition, photographed/uploaded/tagged on our Flickr site.
Discussion at festival events, summarised through a series of blogs and informing a set of open briefing documents which were produced on the festival themes of open space, homes work and movement.
Other input via various meetings and workshops with specific groups (for example elected members, local schools, pop-ups, York Youth Council).
Contributions via conversations on the doorstep, via door-knocking carried out by local councillors and support teams.
The purpose of this document
Revisiting the open briefing documents following the Festival, it was clear that while they largely captured the engagement during each of the themed weeks, there was still scope for a consolidating document which minimised duplication and built upon the links between the issues contained in the individual documents. For example the relationship between homes and movement is itself a key point and one which the two separate briefing documents doesn’t satisfactorily address. There were also over-arching principles which we wanted to give due prominence (for example sustainability) and others which – while central – hadn’t been part of the four weekly themes (for example heritage significance).
These ideas, principles and vision are not only for the York Central Partnership. Many are broader than the site and beyond the control of the Partnership. Therefore these ideas are for organisations across the city, community groups and individuals to work collaboratively to help make them happen.
Since late 2017, York Central Partnership have developed opportunities for the public to engage with, and input into, the proposals as they have developed as follows:
• Stage 1 – YCP met with local groups and organisations and held three public pop-up events to hear thoughts on the emerging principles for the York Central masterplan.
• Stage 2 – YCP held a series of workshops with members of the community to discuss key themes for the emerging York Central masterplan. The workshops allowed YCP to explore issues raised in Stage 1 in greater detail which has helped to progress key elements of the masterplan.
• Stage 3 – The Festival of York Central – a comprehensive process involving an exhibition and dedicated website, as well as a series of events and activities to promote deeper understanding and engagement. This six week process finished on 29 April 2018.
Purpose of stage 3 – Festival of York Central
Following a focused and intensive period of design work, technical studies and engagement with local people over the past six months, YCP identified five main objectives for the stage 3 engagement:
1. Provide a clear overview of how the emerging masterplan is evolving.
2. Hear your views on the overall approach, vision and key principles.
3. Understand your thoughts on more specific elements of the proposals including site access and open spaces.
4. Deepen the level of involvement and understanding of the site through conversation and dialogue to enable long term community involvement in the site as it evolves.
5. Enable a masterplan that better meets the needs of the York community.
My York Central – Background Context
During Stage 1, respondents asked YCP to look at the My Castle Gateway project as a best-practice example of good engagement. The same team created My York Central (MYC). MYC goes beyond conventional community consultation by enabling all those interested to become part of a sustained long-term conversation where influence comes through sharing responsibility for the area and its future. Throughout the festival MYC has worked to make getting involved active, challenging and fun.
The purpose of this note is to summarise the feedback and discussions which took place through the events and activities which took place through the My York Central process alongside the exhibition. It is important to note that responses were also received via the Commonplace platform and main project website, and hard copy questionnaires.
The following summary of feedback is being considered and discussed with YCP and the masterplanning team. It will help to refine and inform the masterplan and the various components of the planning application which is due to be submitted in August 2018.
In addition to the My York Central and wider stage 3 consultation feedback, YCP and the masterplanning team will consider the following:
• Further design work;
• Ongoing technical studies and assessments;
• Ongoing discussions with statutory consultees as part of the pre-application process; and
• Any subsequent targeted engagement as part of stage 4 of the planning application engagement process in advance of the submission of the application(s).
It is envisaged that these workstreams will assist YCP in progressing the following:
1. Refinement of the overarching vision and objectives for York Central.
2. Refinement and evolution of the indicative masterplan and further illustrative studies and materials.
3. Preparation of a set of planning application material which will inform the basis of the consent. As set out
In the exhibition this is likely to include a development schedule (the uses and amounts of development proposed), parameter plans (plans showing the limits of proposed development such as heights and layouts of plots) and design guidance (a guidance document against which future detail planning applications will be assessed).
4. Identification of other topics of discussion which are outside of the remit of YCP or the current planning application. These will be shared with other organisations (e.g. City of York Council) as appropriate.
5. Considering the ongoing approach to engagement beyond the immediate planning application.
Contributions from door-kocking and post-its tagged using Engagement on the My York Central Flickr site. These principles are aimed at actively addressing cynicism and developing long term strategy for involvement at all levels.
Throughout the Festival of York Central there were some strong themes that could usefully underpin what happens next. There was a desire from many people to be actively involved throughout the devleopment of York Central – from developing further ideas to co-design and commuity-led development. For York Central to be innovative, linked to city-wide change. For York Central to be underpinned by a ‘social contract’ to ensure the benefits of York Central are spread widely. To explore the ideas that came out of the Festival of York Central, read the Vision and Big Ideas. To understand the York Central Partnership contexts read the Prelude and Annex.
These are principles that were so central to the public engagement response that they should underpin all future thinking on the proposals.
Ongoing community engagement: For broad and open ongoing community engagement with the development process. The broad and open approach should also shape as far as possible the process of statutory approvals.
Identify issues and co-design solutions: For community engagement to be based upon a continuity of conversation which allows for consideration of options, viability issues and creative design – in short a “grown-up conversation” where there is an invitation both to identify issues and to co-design solutions.
Shaped by future aspirations not current norms: For the development on York Central to be bold and innovative, shaped by hopes and expectations for future urban living rather than current norms.
York Central as a lever for city-wide change: For the development to be a lever for change across the city as a whole and to move forward in parallel with review and implementation of a widely-supported local plan.
A social contract for York Central: For York Central to be developed in ways which spreads benefit, is underpinned up the city’s human rights ethos and is used to creatively address inequalities.
The development of York Central should bring to York elements which it needs to function better as a whole – it should “add something extra” and avoid harmful impact on existing elements of the city.
Thinking City Wide: Looking at patterns of life and work within the city as a whole, and how these can be helped to function better. How will York Central fit into a broad process of improving our current housing provision? What do we do well economically and how can York Central strengthen the city’s economy and provide new opportunities? How can York Central’s transport infrastructure help to shape city-wide integration and improvements in sustainability? So, if a broad, seamless public transport network is required to give an appealing alternative to car ownership, should we be looking at a “Transport for York” umbrella body in order to shape and coordinate it?
Combining different ways of knowing for change: Gathering and combining different information in more subtle ways. This means, for example, combining transport modelling with people’s own sense of their future behaviour. Yet this needs to be done not just as “knowing about: the current situation, it should be part of an active process which allows us to openly ask “what-if” and to consider change.
Heritage as creativity and innovation: For the development to be informed by the past – of the city as a whole and of the site itself – but for this heritage significance (why the past matters in the present) to shape the development in creative and exciting ways.
A New Community on York Central
York Central is not just built form and space. There are examples in York where recent new developments are devoid of life and culture. The planning process needs to move beyond simply allocating land for development within a rational 3D structure. Placemaking needs to consider the narrative of the future place and to engage with people and society. This needs to be part of both the process and the physical form.
The process and form of development needs to provide for the lives that local people want to create there for themselves. Ongoing opportunities for them to shape and re-shape both the physical form (buildings and spaces) and the governance and financial structures (ownership and economy) need to be built into planning. The development should allow for how people want to live, not just reflect what we have done in recent decades.
Inspiring ideas that open up possibilities: We should look for inspiration and practice elsewhere (for example Freiburg Vauban and Heidelberg Bahnstadt) for creative ways to deal with the management of car use and how this impacts on built form and the lives of inhabitants.
Creating a community to bring the York Central community into being: We should be prepared to question accepted wisdom in respect of what brings value and marketability to development and should give consideration to the process of “buying in” to a type of community (in the way it has worked at Derwenthorpe). So, the basis for decision-making on car use/ownership should move from whether we dare deviate from the status quo (“most people have cars, so we design residential areas for cars since moving away from this would result in resistance”) towards consideration of alternative possibilities (“there must be lots of people for whom a car-free neighbourhood this close to the centre would command higher house prices”).
Community-Led Approaches to Development: We should ensure routes for a wide variety of tenures and built form, through community-led homes, investigation of CLT models and other innovative routes. This process should also investigate long-term affordability and how this can be ensured.
Positive benefits of high density through co-design: We should explore a range of models for family housing which go well beyond “a house with a garden” and look at the benefits of higher density and high-quality shared facilities. One comment was that downsizing to a flat in York Central would only be a possibility if it was very, very nice. So, people considering downsizing or moving to York Central should be involved in briefing and designing for that quality.
Real and long term affordability:Affordability was a key issue during the community engagement process. Many people question the official definition of ‘affordable’ and called for greater ambitions in targets. York Central may not be able to “cure” York’s housing affordability problem, but is can demonstrate a methodology to start to address it.
Public space which serves purposes: Home extends beyond the front door, and public space must be thought of as a key shaping tool in creating neighbourhoods, both spatially and in terms of social value. Public space must balance being truly public, with encouraging “ownership” by neighbours and users. There should be a continuum of types of space from playstreets to hard-surfaced urban shared space, gardens and parkland to wilder areas which encourage wildlife. Public space does not, importantly, all have to be at ground level.
Mixed and Thriving York Central
Affordability (of housing and space for commerce) should facilitate the growth of a mixed community, one where a local economy can thrive with links to the city as a whole.
Mixed uses for a vibrant York Central:The need to zone commercial development away from housing was questioned and there was much discussion about whether a vibrant urban area needs mixed development and mixed uses. One quote was to “think 3D” – suggesting there might be benefits in having shops, social and commercial at ground level, offices at first floor and flats above to avoid the ‘ghost town’ effect and drive life in the public realm.
Living + Working: We should question the need to zone or separate living and working Many small-ish creative businesses are both good neighbours to each other (as they often collaborate) and also good neighbours to other uses – including residential – as they create little nuisance. In fact there were benefits in having the kind of activity throughout the day and night that happens when work and homes are linked.
Ways to contribute beyond work: Many people the future will simply not have jobs and they will be looking for creative ways of spending time and contributing and the design of the city should facilitate this, again pointing towards a mixed environment rather than one where work and homes are strictly zoned. There could be exciting possibilities for older residents wishing to have the option of inclusion within economic life, with the option to “invest” capital or time (or both) in neighbourhood economic activity.
Graduates need affordable housing too: Keeping graduates is seen as crucial to growing York’s own talent. Without affordable places to both live and work, graduates will be unable to afford to take necessary business risks, and there will be too great a hurdle to jump in terms of getting starts ups happening. Affordable housing is not just a “housing” issue, but has an impact on economic activity.
The new community on York Central will be dynamic. From the simple fact of long-term development (a scheme which may take 20 years of more to complete) through to uncertainties about future trends in transport or employment, the process and physical form should “leave open doors” for different narratives and opportunities. So, for example:-
Open Source Planning: A popular idea from David Rudlin’s talk on Grow Your Own Garden City was open source planning where a planning authority could pre-approve a variety of possible uses for people’s homes so they could turn them easily into small scale workspaces (open a hairdresser / set up an office).
Neighbourhood Planning?: This is an issue which leads immediately to consideration of Neighbourhood Planning – what will be the status of York Central, and how will neighbourhood planning issues be dealt with as the community develops?
Learning and Working on York Central
Through the public engagement process it became clear that the nature of York’s educational and commercial infrastructure – with two universities and a hugely successful creative industry network – offered opportunities to consciously build new physical and organisational structures which would drive a new phase of economic and cultural development. This would be a high-density mixed development within walking distance of the station (and sufficiently compact to be largely walkable within) where people could live and work.
Build for local business growth: It was also clear that there is a need both for provision for new businesses (supported shared space or incubator provision) and medium-sized growing businesses (10-12+ staff) in order for existing networks of interdependence to develop and grow.
Large employers – but not as a primary driver: This does not rule out new larger employers moving in to York Central, but it suggests that these incomers should not be the primary drivers in terms of the shaping of development.
Another issue which has been highlighted by the community engagement process is that of drawing creative contributions (whether formal or informal, paid or unpaid) together.
Hubs for activity: This requires spaces where things could happen and would include places which could provide venues for lunchtime talks and films, places for broader thinking and debate open to all. Libraries were often seen as “anchors” for this type of activity but it has a breadth which goes well beyond the conventional definition.
Provide creative space for young people: Various bodies including Explore York already provide creative opportunities for young people but these could be expanded within a richer infrastructure which includes local creative practitioners and the universities.
A Social Contract for York Central: Spreading benefits, underpinned by human rights and creatively addressing inequalities
York Central should build upon York’s tradition of pioneering development (with New Earswick, radical 1940’s housing and JRHT’s Derwenthorpe) to ensure a new community which addresses human rights and inequalities. Processes of development should ensure wherever possible that houses become homes rather than investments. Affordable public transport should ensure that access across the city is available to all, and as far as is possible at all times. Creative approaches could be developed to enable intergeneration ‘circular economy’ exchanges of resources of time, expertise and capital.
A “Social Contract” to spread benefit: Careful consideration of the process of development in relation to neighbouring communities and implementation of a “social contract” which allows existing communities to benefit from, and contribute to, York Central itself. For example can community infrastructure be located where the development meets existing communities – or even within those existing communities – to forge links and ensure a fair distribution of benefits of investment? How might community-led development approaches enable people to share time, expertise and financial resources to open up shared benefit.
Prioritise pedestrians and cycle users: Transport infrastructure should reflect the agreed hierarchy of priorities in York where there are rewarded for those choosing not to use cars. This means good, direct routes for pedestrians, those with specific mobility needs and cycle users. Space is always limited but planning should ensure these highest priorities are allocated adequate space, minimising the conflicts which occur (for example between pedestrians and cycle users) when space is cramped. Routes for pedestrians and cycle users should be safe at all times and in all seasons.
Playful and social streets: Transport infrastructure should be designed to facilitate the safe use of public realm by everyone. Car movement and parking should not impinge upon use of streets for play or social activity. All streets adjacent to homes or separating homes from green space should be “liveable streets”.
Sustainability and affordability should go hand in hand: Quality of construction and environment should benefit everyone. Equally-high standards of energy-efficiency should apply throughout, so that those in most need have low fuel bills and avoid fuel poverty, and high standards of construction should protect all from noise nuisance. Low car use should ensure good air quality
Community benefit – for existing and new communities: The entire development should be designed so that investment benefits existing neighbouring communities. Overall connectivity improvements should balance any additional burdens imposed by incoming population (residential or commercial). The overall value of the development should always be the guide in respect of viability of provision of community benefit. This takes us back to the idea that York Central should be guided by a ‘social contract’ that benefits new users of the area, bordering communities and indeed the whole city.
Read the York Central Partnership Annex which sets out the background context to the My York Central Big Ideas, Principles and Vision.
Whether in the exhibition Post It contributions or in the Festival of York Central events there was a almost unanimous call for affordable housing – as well as a questioning of what affordability might mean and call for a York appropriate definition of ‘affordability’. The Big Idea here is how to make homes forever affordable rather than investment opportunities.
Over 3500 post it notes. Over 30 events. Many conversations. All have fed into the My York Central: Big Ideas. To read the ideas in more detail and trace back their orgins in the Flickr archive read the My York Central Vision.
Homes not Holiday Lets. Our HolidayLets tag on the Flickr site.
2) Exploit the benefits of high density: High density should bring walkable access to shops, gyms, culture, entertainment, public transport and incredible roof top views. Identify these benefits collaboratively and design for them.
Easy access to shops, public transport and entertainment were identified as some of the benefits of high density. Views were also identified as a benefit: protect existing views from Holgate and Leeman Road and create new ones.
3) Build in low running costs through high standards: Link low fuel bills and environmental sustainability through high building standards.
Seeing York Central as innovative was seen as crucial. Planning for sustainability was not seen as a luxury. It can help address affordability by bringing living costs down.
4) People, not more cars: Whether people love and rely on their cars or want to see a car free York, there is one shared point of agreement: that York Central cannot add 2500+ more cars to York’s roads. York Central should provide liveable streets and safe neighbourhoods for children to grow up, keep cars to the periphery, plan for quick and reliable public transport and prioritise direct routes for those on foot, bikes and with mobility aids.
The Cars tag on our Flickr site reveals both strong differences in emphasis on whether cars are inevitable part of York life – but the point of agreement was that another 2500+ cars in that part of York is not a good idea.
5) Beyond zoning: Work is changing. Work and life are often no longer zoned into 9am-5pm so why should our cities be? Plan for creative vibrant urban space by mixing up work, living and cultural buildings and spaces.
How can York Cenrtal create thriving urban spaces by mixing up work, social spaces and homes?
6) A community made through exchange: York has enormous wealth, socially, culturally and financially. Use York Central to build a community that can build links between people to address inequalities through sharing and exchange.
7) A hub that catalyses York’s creativity and innovation: Amazing things are happening in York from media, science and technology and heritage. Develop a showcase and learning hub that challenges perceptions and fuels new ideas and networks.
This has been a real emergent theme from the Festival of York Central events. How might a hub catalyse York’s talent and capacities for creativity and innovation?
8) Public spaces that enable people to be collectively creative: Design indoor and outdoor public space and forms of collaborative governance that enable communities to take ownership and to cultivate lots of different activities.
Questions of how we can create public spaces that enable a real variety of activities and community ownership were raised throughout the events.
Post its of key ideas noted at the workshop with Tony May.
Wednesday 11th April, 7:00pm – 9:00pm
National Railway Museum Gallery
York resident Dr Tony May specialises in urban transport and has provided advice in the UK, Europe and internationally. He is the transport specialist on York Civic Trust’s Planning Committee. This event included an illustrated talk bringing in examples from the Vauban project in Freiburg to examine how sustainable transport can genuinely form the heart of new development, shaping it and making it a pleasant and more affordable place to live and work. We discussed the current emerging masterplan, how closely this reflects the priorities set out in York’s Local Transport Plan, and how it might be further developed to make both the new development and surrounding existing communities more sustainable.
Questions
There were then a series of questions from the audience.
Q: Vauban – how does the parking work?
Residents can choose to have a car, but if they have one they have to pay for a space in one of two multi-storey car parks. They pay the actual cost of provision (land & construction) which is between €18,500-€22,500 plus a monthly service charge. Car ownership is 160 cars per 1000 residents, compared with 299 elsewhere in Freiburg. There is evidence of a trend towards car ownership being less important for young people, they are interested in alternatives like car clubs and car sharing. In inner city areas, high quality public transport can encourage people to leave their cars.
Q: What about deliveries in Vauban? What if you were having a washing machine delivered?
In central London a landowner I am working with managed to reduce deliveries by 50-70% by having a central pick up point. It wouldn’t work for washing machines but then we don’t get washing machines delivered every day.
Q: Leeman Road traffic, where will it go?
There is interesting research which says that if you reduce roads then some of those journeys just don’t happen – or they happen in different ways. But knowing what people are doing instead is difficult to research. You can increase the capacity of the road network through some tinkering in order to ease congestion, as we’ve shown with the Fishergate Gyratory.
Q: I want to be able to drive down Leeman Road, not to get into the centre of York but to get across York.
Q: In terms of parking, there would need to be no on street parking and restricted parking in all neighbouring areas or there is the potential for displacement parking.
If you manage parking then you have to cover an area that is much larger to avoid displacement.
Q: Station plans: if you have a new multi-storey and buses and taxis coming to the back of the station, then all the traffic would still be coming through Marble Arch.
At our meeting with Arup it seems they were planning for a 500-place multi-storey car park, to be shared between NRM and Network Rail. There is also the potential for a multi-storey on the Railway Institute site.
Q: Does it make sense to use existing rails for Very Light Rail?
There has been talk about a Harrogate / Scarborough line (where trains only run once per hour) use of existing rails. But on other lines the frequency of trains is much greater. But Very Light Rail needs significance investment. Where are people coming from to the station, I’ve not seen those figures.
Q: I live 3 miles from York Station and go there regularly for work, but the Park and Ride is just too slow. We need tram or something similar to get people like me out of my car.
Q: HS2 – how does that fit into the future economic development of York?
There is a danger by connection big and dynamic A-type cities (like Manchester and Newcastle) that B-type cities like York suffer. If York is not active in pursuing economic development then HS2 or any increased connectivity will be to the detriment of York.
Q: Why are they doing what they are doing with Queen Street Bridge?
The Council got Yorkshire Transport Infrastructure funding to do a number of things – including the York Central Access route – and the Queen’s Street Bridge was one of them. The money needs to be spent by 2021.
Q: Can we bring trams to York?
Trams in the UK have a chequered history. They have tended to be overdesigned, like in Manchester, and are therefore very expensive. They tend to be privately operated. And they are expensive to get up and running, Leeds has been trying for 25 years. Very Light Rail is being looked at in Warwick University to be tried out in Coventry, this could be lower cost. This would require a conversation with Network Rail. This is something to be discussed in York’s Transport Plan.
Focused small group discussion
We then broke into groups to look at different questions:
Walking and Cycling: What should the networks look like?
• Better walking and cycling connection from Wilton Rise – to then connect into the new Scarborough Railway Bridge was seen as a very good thing that opened up entirely new off road routes.
• Closely Leeman Road was questioned – it is very busy and how can we stop the other new road being through route and 24h access for pedestrians was seen as essential. Rijksmuseum was mentioned.
• Prompted by this we looked at the options for Marble Arch (which ‘is an embarrassment’). It was noted that any traffic that did come through would be driving through the new square.
Public Transport: What should the network look like?
• The network needs new services in addition to re-routing of existing ones. They need to actually stop in York Central, and need to operate as close to 24/7 as possible.
• The network needs to connect both with the broader York and regional network (people want to travel from York Central elsewhere in York, not just to the centre of the city and they don’t want complex/slow connections) and with destinations within York Central such as service points, car club locations etc.
• We need better-designed vehicles so they are seen positively, but they also need all the basics so need to be convenient, predictable, quiet, attractive. Also need to make use of current good technology like contactless and live timing displays.
• We need mixed vehicles to cope with longer/shorter distances, so small for local and bigger for “trunk” routes. Small ones could be “driverless pods” or could be like the NRM road train but electric.
• Trams tend to work well on straight lines, buses cope better with wiggly networks.
• “Sustainability” has to include guaranteed mobility for those with disabilities. Can we have a York Central Dial-a-Ride?
Provision for parking:
• A key driver to the discussion was ‘tomorrow’s solutions, not today’s’. So let’s know assume everyone wants a car. Where will autonomous vehicles park?
• A lot of discussion about the benefit of meeting spaces near to the station (add in post its). It was noted Clifton Moor office space – with a lot of parking attached – was being turned into office space.
• A model like Vauban – with parking on the edge – was broadly supported. Though the group was a bit worried about how Tesco deliveries would be taken in (Tony said, carry it down the street!).
Provision for servicing
• Dedicated cycle routes give options for use as dedicated delivery routes – either with “delivery bots” or simply cycle couriers.
• Trans-shipment involves “double handling” of goods but this is part of the process anyway – we just don’t see it (look at online tracking of any parcel to see how many separate journeys are involved). There are positive branding opportunities in this – M&S can offset extra costs of handling for local transhipment by ensuring the delivery vehicles have “M&S supports local zero-carbon deliveries” all down the side.
• Recycling – needs consideration as part of the design process (keep it close to homes / work) and also management process (how can it be incentivised, like at student halls).
Post it notes contributed during the York Centra: Archeaology Above and Below Ground event.
Thursday 12th April 2018
What possibilities for understanding York’s history are offered by York Central? John Oxley, City Archaeologist for the City of York Council explored the ‘Archaeological Possibilities’, what evidence for prehistoric, Roman, medieval, Civil War, and railway deposits might be present under the ground of the railway siding and buildings might there be? Architectural Historian Alison Sinclair, outlined the Legacy of Railway Buildings on the site, what were they used for, their importance in the industrial history of the City, and suggests how might they be repurposed in the new development.
Leeman Road / Thief Lane: the historic route into town
‘I am worried about cutting of Leeman Road; what is the relationship of Leeman Road today with Thief Lane?’
‘Thief Lane was diverted when new railway station built to line of current road’.
‘The new NRM link building will destroy the historic route into town’.
Pride in Industry: Social History
‘The cultural connection is important, there is a sense of pride in industry, we need to maintain this for future generations. I want my children to know they are living in a railway area’
‘Yes, it is about social history as well as bricks and mortar’.
‘York’s industry and working class social history is hidden – there is pride in it but it’s not valued; there should be pride in that industry. “We don’t want York to be an expensive tourist trap”.
“Council seemed desperate to get rid of blue collar jobs”.
‘rail industry has relocated to places with engineering history but not railway engineering’.
We have to remember the scale of employment – the cyclists at closing time. How can we capture that – WW silhouettes?
Is there any other housing which has links with the railways? Dave – yes, all around this part of the city.
Reuse of buildings
‘Can these buildings can be reused? Can we create a “sticky” site?’
‘Autohorn leaving foundry building. Can we find meanwhile uses which keep buildings in use?’
‘There can be nervousness about occupancy tying up futures of buildings’.
Queen Street Bridge
‘Queen Street Bridge overlooks and marginalises the Railway Institute. The bar in the RI has just closed. So there is choice to be made between RI and the bridge and I choose the RI”.
Sense of Place
‘Can we retain the small detailed stuff, which give sense of place?’
‘the landscape architects are “hooked on the place”’
‘But is this subject to costs’. The example of rebuilding of great hall was given where there was ‘a complete loss of railway engineering history’.
‘How far back into deep time do you go? “Without the glaciers, this wouldn’t be here at all”. The value of the kettle holes etc’.
‘Can we document the small stuff collectively? What public benefit can there be?’
John commented that in other recent excavations they have been professionally-led, community-staffed exercise in surveying/recording. There are people out there at different levels of engagement. How is it all brought together and made public?
How can we reuse the rails that are on the site?
Can we park cars at the edge of the site and use the tracks to move people across it?
Shaping the future?
We ended by asking our speakers to reflect on how the histories and hertiage we discussed should this shape the future.
Alison: Continuity is really important.
John:- There is a professional process underway, but another question is intangible heritage – sounds and smells, the stories of people which resonate among communities. How do we capture these and use them to inform development?
A community heritage group?
We ended by exploring whether we should we form a huge community heritage group to do the public documentation, research, events and archaeology. More on this soon!
Friday 13th April
One of the key issues that has emerged from conversations within the Festival of York Central has been connections between the new development and existing surrounding communities. It’s recognised that the existing footbridge across the goods line which connects Cinder Path and Wilton Rise is not ideal, and the masterplanning team are exploring options to improve this connection. These include replacing the existing bridge with something better in the same location, providing an improved connecting route, replacing the bridge in a new location, or doing nothing. The aspiration would be for the new bridge to be more usable for cyclists, for wheelchair users and for those with prams and push chairs. We leafleted all properties in the area and then in collaboration with the friends of Holgate Community Garden, walked the routes to take a look at the options.
Throughout the conversations there were some “bigger picture” questions raised:
‘What will be the increase in volume of walking and cycling? Who will be using the routes when the development is completed? We need to have all the information in order to make a decision’.
As well as some statements of principle discussed:
‘York Central shouldn’t be to the detriment of the people who already live here’.
We have then organised the responses underneath the four options proposed in the York Central masterplan.
Option 1 is the red line on the map.
Option 1: Wilton Rise, replace the existing bridge.
‘Could the bridge widen out from the south as it crosses the railway?’
‘It’s got busier, the bridge can’t cope and it’s affecting residents’
‘Lots more bikes and lots more pedestrians – I’m not sure the surroundings of the bridge can sustain that, screeching bikes, noisy roller suitcases, high heels. The streets are narrow’.
‘I didn’t envisage when I bought the house that it would be a thoroughfare into town’.
As you can see from the information, one of the issues raised for any route was whether it goes through the unadopted Wilton Rise. Being unadopted means the residents and not the council are responsible for maintaining the street. Currently there are a number of potholes and cracked pavements.
It also restricts the possibilities for restricting/controlling parking. ‘We will soon have residents parking (Respark) in the terraced streets near the bridge but not on Wilton Rise as that is an unadopted road’.
Option 2 is the route indicated in yellow.
Option 2: Wilton Rise, new line for the bridge.
‘It is a bit bonkers’
‘This location for a bridge is something people didn’t sign up for when they moved here’
‘It depends on what would be on the other side – would it be bars?’
‘So the new empty offices will go there, will they?’
‘How high will the buildings be on the York Central side?’
‘This is a great view of the Minster – but not an “acknowledged” view’
‘This option doesn’t solve the Wilton Rise issue’.
The question remains in terms of volume of cyclists and pedestrians.
Option 3 is indicated in blue and shows a new route up Chancery Rise.
Option 3: a new path coming up Chancery Rise leading to a new bridge
This Option 3 follows the line of one the proposed routes for a new access road (the final access route chosen was the one from Water End via Millennium Green).
In principle there was an interest in the positive aspects of more people using the Holgate Community Garden and good use of any cycle path:
‘This is an “asset of community value” garden – we want people to use the garden’.
‘The more people that use any new cycle path – and the garden as well – less chance for anti-social behaviour’.
‘We want the garden to be put on the map and be better used’.
But there were some specific concerns and some specific requirements that would need to be taken into account:
Where exactly will the route go:
‘There is a massive height difference so they’d have to start ramping it very early’.
‘The worry is they will start shaving bits off the garden and play area. It’s been a long fight to protect this’.
‘There is perhaps the piece of waste land on the other side of the fence (and the basket ball court)’.
‘The bike path would not be overlooked here (to the rear of and below the Wilton Rise gardens– so it would need to be very well lit at night’.
‘We wouldn’t want to lose the trees. The trees are useful for shading and reducing noise, we’d want to keep the trees.’
Any option would need to take into account and build on the Holgate Community Gardens specialness:
‘At the moment this works well as an enclosed space where children can run around without them wandering off’.
‘The basketball court is used by groups including by the school for PE, so that would need to be kept’.
‘The residents of the area, would want ‘to get onto the cycling path at the end of the garden’ – but want the point above noted in terms of the benefits of enclosure.
Option 4 didn’t seem overly different or worthy of specific discussion as it was effectively the same as Option 1; and proceeding as if people wouldn’t use Wilton Rise if that was their shortest route didn’t seem useful.
Other options:
‘Is there another option which is further along (beyond the Holgate Works, where the business park is). The benefit would be not having to come up (the line of the railway) to go back down again.’ This had also been mentioned previously as a good link between the development and Acomb’s shops/businesses.
Notes on cycle routes:
The rejection of Option 4 was in part as a result of feelings about marked cycle routes. The streets have little vehicular traffic but a lot of parking, meaning the pragmatic safest route is often straight down the middle of the road, in order to give best sightlines for any emerging traffic and to keep clear of opening car doors. There would be little point in marking a cycle route on either side of any of the roads as it would be ignored.
Final thoughts:
• Adopting Wilton Rise: It seemed as though the recent adoption offer to Wilton Rise had been unattractive for the residents as there was an initial payment to cover assessment which would be followed by an unknown amount to bring the road up to standard before adoption. Could this offer be revisited as part of these masterplan discussions?
• Is connectivity always good? There has been an assumption that connectivity is good but there were voices of concern about great connectivity to the new community that York Central would bring. A question raised is how to recognise that communities need some kind of boundary and yet also create routes through…how do we design for both?
Post-it notes contributed during the Living and Working Creatively on York Central event.
Work
Week 3 of the Festival of York Central was focused on ‘work’, asking what kind of work and ways of working might York Central enable. Getting engagement with the mainstream business community was problematic – “commercial confidentiality” seemed to prevent a lot of possible avenues for discussion on what was wanted on York Central. However, we still had useful discussions and some very creative input. Special thanks to York@Large and the Guild of Media Arts. Our open briefing document is based on the following:-
A meeting with Heather Niven, Science City York, who has been leading on a piece of work in collaboration with local creative, digital and science and technology businesses looking the work space needs in York.
We are also currently developing an event: ‘How can York Central enable careers and businesses in the railway industry?’ details to be announced soon.
Accessible infrastructure
A key theme – which stretches across all of the Festival of York Central themes – is that York Central has the opportunity to create an underpinning accessible infrastructure that enables gender equality and is not a disabling space. This includes easy to access crèches, accessible buildings, child care facilities, spaces where you can be with your children, gender neutral and accessible toilets. The definition of “work” was also questioned during conversations – much work is unpaid but contributes to economic activity, and this should be considered too.
Hubs of similar businesses
‘A hub of people doing the same things helps everyone thrive’
York was seen to be doing okay in terms of creating space for very small business and is becoming a well-established centre of excellence in media industries, although the “low profile” of these businesses mean that this would probably be a surprise to many in the city.
Rather than see each other as competitors, the existing community of creative and digital agencies was seen as positive and York Central was seen as an opportunity for this to grow and develop.
Middle-sized businesses
There is a missing “middle band” of size of business and premises for them. An example given was that of architects with staff of ten in an office which fits seven with no space to expand beyond that. If middle-sized businesses do want to stay in York they are forced out to Clifton Moor. ‘If you bring a client to the centre of York, that’s great – Clifton Moor… not so much’. This issue of the wider setting of the workplace was mentioned many times; bringing a client on foot from their train through a buzzy neighbourhood to a workplace with good cafes/restaurants/meeting places nearby was seen as massively positive.
Freelancers, flexible and networking space
‘In the future, there will be much fewer paid salary jobs. A lot of people will be forced back onto their own devices’
There was support for the idea of co-working hub spaces where freelancers could share facilities (printers or craft materials), book affordable meeting space for clients and network. An example given was Melting Pot in Edinburgh, which has been operating successfully for over a decade.
Living and working in an integrated way
An interesting dimension of the discussions was the sense that there was no need to zone or separate living and working strictly. Many small-ish creative businesses are both good neighbours to each other (as they often collaborate) and also good neighbours to other uses – including residential – as they create little nuisance. In fact there were benefits in having the kind of activity throughout the day and night that happens when work and homes are linked. Furthermore as many of the types of jobs that York is seeking to cultivate are not strictly of the 9-to-5 variety that life-work proximity enables child care and might also enable the new 21st century version of work-life balance where work time is not zoned into certain temporal parts of your life.
Open Source Planning: being able to change use of your home easily
A popular idea from David Rudlin’s talk on Grow Your Own Garden City was open source planning where a planning authority could pre-approve a variety of possible uses for people’s homes so they could turn them easily into small scale workspaces (open a hairdresser / set up an office). This is an issue which leads immediately to consideration of Neighbourhood Planning – what will be the status of York Central (will it simply be part of one or more existing wards? How will neighbourhood planning issues be dealt with as the community – residential and business – develops?
Affordable places to live are essential to keeping graduates and York’s young people
Keeping graduates is seen as crucial to growing York’s own talent. But this was seen as intimately connected to housing costs, as graduates can’t afford to take risks because housing costs are so high. Graduates have to work so many hours to cover living costs, so there is a greater hurdle to jump in terms of getting starts ups happening. Affordable housing is not just a “housing” issue, but has an impact on economic activity.
Unpaid work and enabling contributing and taking part
It was noted that many people the future will simply not have jobs and they will be looking for creative ways of spending time and contributing. Some will be doing unpaid work of various kinds, including caring for children or older relatives. The design of the city should facilitate this, again pointing towards a mixed environment rather than one where work and homes are strictly zoned. This was already touched upon during our “homes” discussions, flagging up the possibility of older residents wishing to have the option of inclusion within economic life, with the option to “invest” capital or time (or both) in nearby economic activity which contributes to their immediate environment.
The cultural hub: Draw creative contributions (paid and unpaid) together
‘Having a variety of spaces which allow different uses is powerful’.
Mixed uses has been a theme of the Festival of York Central discussions, and has been driven by many of the examples from The Life Sized City film series, where community initiatives have made use of unused or under-used urban space to bring activities that would otherwise be excluded by strict zoning. The idea of York Central as a place where there are always exciting and creative things going on was discussed. How to make this happen was debated and the idea of spaces where things could happen was a key idea. This would include places which could provide venues for lunchtime talks and films, places for broader thinking and debate open to all. Libraries were often seen as “anchors” for this type of activity but it has a breadth which goes well beyond the conventional definition.
Shouting about what is already going on
There was a strong sense that York needs to make more of what is already going on as a way of attracting more interest and activity. Could York Central offer an exhibition space that showcases innovative work going on in York? Can we explore ideas both short-term and long-term – “meanwhile” and permanent – where a “gateway” between station and the rest of the city provides a showcase for the talent, energy and creativity which powers the city but is otherwise hidden?
