Day 1 presentations a

1,133 views

Published on

yComposite slideshow of the presentations for Day 1 of the Design Skills Smposium in Stirling, Sep 27, 201

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,133
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
23
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • THANKSIntroduction - explain who I am and CLESI’d like to begin by telling you a little bit about myself and CLES, the Centre for Local Economic Strategies.I have been working in economic development and regeneration for the last 11 years. I started off working in rural development in the North East of England and Yorkshire but the last 6 years has been spent working at CLES as their Director of Policy. Earlier this year I was given the opportunity to take up an ESRC studentship at Glasgow University where I am going to be working on a PhD over the next three years on the challenge of economic peripherality. My PhD will build on my work with CLES on place resilience that I’m going to be telling you more about this afternoon. What I’d like to do this afternoon is examine how the work you will be doing on the design of three areas in Stirling is closely linked to economic development and particularly the links between the design process model you will be using and the CLES model of place resilience.You are trying to answer the question – how do we design better places. For me the question would be how do we design “resilient places” and I am going to share with you CLES thoughts on what we mean by resilience and our model for strengthening resilience of place. For those of you who don’t know us, CLES is a membership and research organisation which operates both nationally and internationally and is based in Manchester. CLES was formed in the 1980s in recognition of the need to support those areas that were undergoing, what we euphemistically call ‘industrial restructuring’ . CLES works with organisations from across the UK trying to create new ways of working which will support employment and create opportunities for all in society. Since the recession, CLES have been calling for a new approach to economic development which is focused less on growth as an end in itself abut why do we need a new model of doing economic development which But why do we think we need a new story? What has gone wrong with the current model of economic development?
  • Growth not enough: Over the last 15- 20 years, economically speaking, the UK has done well. We’ve had a decade of strong growth with high employment levels and productivity. But inequality is rising, and many places are not good places to live and will struggle to grow longer term. We don’t have a cogent vision for the future of these places. Even in those areas that did grow during the good times, the growth didn’t always ‘stick’. Eg, in parts of South Staffordshire – eg Cannock chase – strong growth during teh good times – melted away as soon as trouble beginDisconnect between players in placemakingI suspect that this may be because the process of place-making and the objectives of economic development are not always aligned/frequently disjointed. Economic Development has become too much about growth as an end in itself which has meant that issues such as quality of design, sense of community and stewardship have tended to become secondary to the short term requirements of growth. Similarly, economic development practitioners have become concerned that place making is more concerned about design and the look of a place, rather than how the local economy will operate. professionals often don’t work close enough together – planner and economic developmentCuritiba – reference Who are the place makers and who really benefitsRegeneration – dark side – property developmentDisoloation between people and propertyEg of Paraisoplis and favelas
  • Curitiba claimed to have achieved high level of integration between economic, spatial and transport planningExemplified by their high speed rapid bus transit system.
  • Who are the place makers?This is Parsopolis Sao Paulo, one of the most famous favelas in Sao Paulo and home to more then 60,000 people. These informal types of settlement perhaps seem rather remote to what we are discussing at this conference, but for me it raises some interesting issues.In the favelas, the people are the place makers, they build the houses, they organise their own services (water, electricity, internet), they run their own businesses and they manage their own security. These are often dangerous and lawless places, but they are also where people live and work. For many years, Sao Paulo City Council were embarrassed about the favelas and had a policy of clearance. However as this didn’t work and the favelas continued to grow, over time, the council have changed tack and have now recognised, although by no means ideal, the favelas cannot be simply ignored or eradicated. The favelas are a part of the city and the city must work with the original place makers to improve the quality of life in these areas. So the city are implementing what they call ‘urban acupuncture which aims to work with residents to improve conditions within the favela so that there is access to services such as health, education and safe sanitation and water supply.Challenges our perceptions of quality of place – that our perceptions about the quality of place might be very different to the people who live and work thereSo what do I think are the solutions to these problems – or at least part of the solution?
  • I would argue that this is not simply because the place has had economic growth – its more to do with resilience which we define as the ......or put another way – places which go boing!For many years, I’ve been fascinated by the question of why some places, when faced with a economic , social or environmental shock, some places are able to galvanise, organise and over time manage the negative impacts on the area and survive whilst other areas simply crumble and never fully recover.At CLES, we’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand the component part of resilience and we've summarised them in this place resilience model
  • Provide a brief description of the CLES resilience Model in the usual way emphasizing that the model aims to reconceptualise theMake the point that this model is about re-conceptualising the economics of a place – the transactions between public, social and commercial players in a community and also the different issues (eg government, identity) which influence the way in which the economy operates. But how does this correspond to the delivery of better places? What are the parallels between what CLES are saying about how you create resilient economies and with what you are saying at this conference about the design of better places?
  • This model was developed by the Scottish Centre for Regeneration (SCR) in the Scottish Government, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Scotland and Architecture + Design Scotland (A+DS), and the University of Glasgow (copies?).Briefly describe the 5 stages.This 5 stage model will be used as a framework for testing the concepts that you develop over the course of this conference and by reading through it you can start to understand the importance of this process in the delivery of better places and why place making is a complex and challenging process. I had the chance to explore this challenge through some international research with the Norfolk Trust last year which examined the challenge of community resilience internationally.What we found echoesPlace links location, community, and opportunity
  • Summarise – place policy is economic policy
  • Good afternoon and thank you for that introduction Scott. I should perhaps explain Scott’s role in this project. Not only is Scott the Deputy Leader of Stirling Council, but he is a non executive director of NHS FV and a member of the Project Board that is managing this project.I am also joined in the audience by Roger Tanner and Paul Mortimer from Strategem who have been assisting us through the process.
  • The initiative will address a number of well known challenges that, to a greater or lesser extent, all of these organisation face today, namely, An estate that has grown sporadically rather than organicallyDoes not really support new ways of workingAre inherently inflexible because of physical structureAre poorly performing in terms of achieving consistent carbon reduction
  • The initiative will address a number of well known challenges that, to a greater or lesser extent, all of these organisation face today, namely, An estate that has grown sporadically rather than organicallyDoes not really support new ways of workingAre inherently inflexible because of physical structureAre poorly performing in terms of achieving consistent carbon reduction
  • These publicly supported bodies that serve communities across Forth Valley have jointly identified an initiative to develop a combined Property and Asset Management Strategy. That initiative was supported through the FVPSPG, a group of my peers who had responsibility for the estate and its management. We all quickly agreed that this would be essential to improving efficiency and that was one of the early wins that we identified 12 months ago.
  • Some high level numbersAsset base Replacement valueDisposal valueBacklog maintenance requirementsCurrent revenue charges, excluding UP and capital charges.Lifecycle costs if we were doing it in a planned way, if we don’t the backlog simply goes up.
  • So why are we doing it? Apart from the literal interpretation that it’s a mandatory requirement for the NHS, I would contend why would we choose to do this in isolation from our other public sector partners or key stakeholders given that we all generally deliver services from a wide range of disparate buildings across FV settlements?The new CEL PAMS Policy gives a clear message about asset management and is clearly linked to service strategies as well as performance management arrangements being robustly managed at local and national level.This was a key requirement of the 2009 Audit Scotland report, but equally it was a requirement of the NAO 1999 Report. But that wasn’t as robustly implemented at a SG level.Indeed, there is nothing really new in this approach, a recent literature review established 30+ studies on the subject, but very little implementation.
  • So why are we doing it? Apart from the literal interpretation that it’s a mandatory requirement for the NHS, I would contend why would we choose to do this in isolation from our other public sector partners or key stakeholders given that we all generally deliver services from a wide range of disparate buildings across FV settlements?The new CEL PAMS Policy gives a clear message about asset management and is clearly linked to service strategies as well as performance management arrangements being robustly managed at local and national level.This was a key requirement of the 2009 Audit Scotland report, but equally it was a requirement of the NAO 1999 Report. But that wasn’t as robustly implemented at a SG level.Indeed, there is nothing really new in this approach, a recent literature review established 30+ studies on the subject, but very little implementation.
  • So why are we doing it? Apart from the literal interpretation that it’s a mandatory requirement for the NHS, I would contend why would we choose to do this in isolation from our other public sector partners or key stakeholders given that we all generally deliver services from a wide range of disparate buildings across FV settlements?The new CEL PAMS Policy gives a clear message about asset management and is clearly linked to service strategies as well as performance management arrangements being robustly managed at local and national level.This was a key requirement of the 2009 Audit Scotland report, but equally it was a requirement of the NAO 1999 Report. But that wasn’t as robustly implemented at a SG level.Indeed, there is nothing really new in this approach, a recent literature review established 30+ studies on the subject, but very little implementation.
  • So why are we doing it? Apart from the literal interpretation that it’s a mandatory requirement for the NHS, I would contend why would we choose to do this in isolation from our other public sector partners or key stakeholders given that we all generally deliver services from a wide range of disparate buildings across FV settlements?The new CEL PAMS Policy gives a clear message about asset management and is clearly linked to service strategies as well as performance management arrangements being robustly managed at local and national level.This was a key requirement of the 2009 Audit Scotland report, but equally it was a requirement of the NAO 1999 Report. But that wasn’t as robustly implemented at a SG level.Indeed, there is nothing really new in this approach, a recent literature review established 30+ studies on the subject, but very little implementation.
  • So why are we doing it? Apart from the literal interpretation that it’s a mandatory requirement for the NHS, I would contend why would we choose to do this in isolation from our other public sector partners or key stakeholders given that we all generally deliver services from a wide range of disparate buildings across FV settlements?The new CEL PAMS Policy gives a clear message about asset management and is clearly linked to service strategies as well as performance management arrangements being robustly managed at local and national level.This was a key requirement of the 2009 Audit Scotland report, but equally it was a requirement of the NAO 1999 Report. But that wasn’t as robustly implemented at a SG level.Indeed, there is nothing really new in this approach, a recent literature review established 30+ studies on the subject, but very little implementation.
  • So why are we doing it? Apart from the literal interpretation that it’s a mandatory requirement for the NHS, I would contend why would we choose to do this in isolation from our other public sector partners or key stakeholders given that we all generally deliver services from a wide range of disparate buildings across FV settlements?The new CEL PAMS Policy gives a clear message about asset management and is clearly linked to service strategies as well as performance management arrangements being robustly managed at local and national level.This was a key requirement of the 2009 Audit Scotland report, but equally it was a requirement of the NAO 1999 Report. But that wasn’t as robustly implemented at a SG level.Indeed, there is nothing really new in this approach, a recent literature review established 30+ studies on the subject, but very little implementation.
  • So why are we doing it? Apart from the literal interpretation that it’s a mandatory requirement for the NHS, I would contend why would we choose to do this in isolation from our other public sector partners or key stakeholders given that we all generally deliver services from a wide range of disparate buildings across FV settlements?The new CEL PAMS Policy gives a clear message about asset management and is clearly linked to service strategies as well as performance management arrangements being robustly managed at local and national level.This was a key requirement of the 2009 Audit Scotland report, but equally it was a requirement of the NAO 1999 Report. But that wasn’t as robustly implemented at a SG level.Indeed, there is nothing really new in this approach, a recent literature review established 30+ studies on the subject, but very little implementation.
  • Even the Do minimum requires some change. Maximising benefits (better services, improved value for money etc) can only be achieved with major change which brings with it increased risk which has to be managed (political, business, operational risk)
  • So why are we doing it? Apart from the literal interpretation that it’s a mandatory requirement for the NHS, I would contend why would we choose to do this in isolation from our other public sector partners or key stakeholders given that we all generally deliver services from a wide range of disparate buildings across FV settlements?The new CEL PAMS Policy gives a clear message about asset management and is clearly linked to service strategies as well as performance management arrangements being robustly managed at local and national level.This was a key requirement of the 2009 Audit Scotland report, but equally it was a requirement of the NAO 1999 Report. But that wasn’t as robustly implemented at a SG level.Indeed, there is nothing really new in this approach, a recent literature review established 30+ studies on the subject, but very little implementation.
  • So why are we doing it? Apart from the literal interpretation that it’s a mandatory requirement for the NHS, I would contend why would we choose to do this in isolation from our other public sector partners or key stakeholders given that we all generally deliver services from a wide range of disparate buildings across FV settlements?The new CEL PAMS Policy gives a clear message about asset management and is clearly linked to service strategies as well as performance management arrangements being robustly managed at local and national level.This was a key requirement of the 2009 Audit Scotland report, but equally it was a requirement of the NAO 1999 Report. But that wasn’t as robustly implemented at a SG level.Indeed, there is nothing really new in this approach, a recent literature review established 30+ studies on the subject, but very little implementation.
  • So why are we doing it? Apart from the literal interpretation that it’s a mandatory requirement for the NHS, I would contend why would we choose to do this in isolation from our other public sector partners or key stakeholders given that we all generally deliver services from a wide range of disparate buildings across FV settlements?The new CEL PAMS Policy gives a clear message about asset management and is clearly linked to service strategies as well as performance management arrangements being robustly managed at local and national level.This was a key requirement of the 2009 Audit Scotland report, but equally it was a requirement of the NAO 1999 Report. But that wasn’t as robustly implemented at a SG level.Indeed, there is nothing really new in this approach, a recent literature review established 30+ studies on the subject, but very little implementation.
  • Day 1 presentations a

    1. 1. Design Skills Symposium 2011WelcomeDay 1<br /> Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling<br />
    2. 2. Jim MacDonaldChief Executive, A+DS<br /> Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling<br />“Delivering Better Places”<br />
    3. 3. design skills symposiumdelivering better places<br />Kevin Murray<br />Chairman, Academy of Urbanism<br />Director, Kevin Murray Associates<br />
    4. 4. why is DBP important?<br />
    5. 5.
    6. 6.
    7. 7. Kilmarnock - Initial analysis and recommendations<br />
    8. 8. Kilmarnock - Initial analysis and recommendations<br />
    9. 9. taking responsibility<br />
    10. 10. the team is changing….<br />
    11. 11. aims for day 1<br />1 reflect on your own experience<br /> …and that of others<br />2 what are the barriers to DBP?<br />3 how might these be overcome<br /> …collaboratively?<br />
    12. 12. day 1<br />Stirling context Peter Morgan<br />Local economic development Sarah Longlands<br />Place & development economics Steve Tolson<br />Health & places Tom Steele<br />Green networks, ecology Max Hislop<br />Workshop 1<br />Plenary<br />
    13. 13. day 2<br />Focus on your ideas around<br />concept development<br />solutions in placemaking<br />collaboration and integration<br />
    14. 14. day 3<br />making it all happen<br />how to deliver<br />idea development to implementation<br />learning from each other – peer review<br />
    15. 15. Peter MorganChief Planning Officer, Stirling Council<br /> Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling<br />“Delivering Better Places”<br />
    16. 16. Sarah LonglandsResearch Associate, Centre for Local Economic Strategies<br /> Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling<br />“Delivering Better Places”<br />
    17. 17. Local Economic Development: the role of place and diversity <br />Sarah Longlands<br />Research Fellow (CLES) Centre for Local Economic Strategies<br />27th September 2011<br />
    18. 18. Why do we need a new story for economic development?<br />We’ve had more than a decade of economic development but inequality between and within places has grown. Many places still struggle. Why?<br />Process of place making and objectives of economic development are not always well aligned and frequently disjointed<br />Legacy of regeneration suggests we need to look again at who really benefits from place-making?<br />
    19. 19. Curitiba, Brazil<br /> Integration of economic, spatial and transport planning‘A city designed for people not planners’<br />
    20. 20. Final thought......here mixing doesn’t happen<br />Who are the place makers?<br />Paraisopolis, Sao Paulo<br />
    21. 21. A better place = a ‘resilient’ place<br />“Resilience is the capacity of a system to deal with negative change without collapsing, to withstand shocks, and to rebuild itself and learn”<br />Places which go.....<br />
    22. 22. Resilience<br />McInroy & Longlands (2010) Productive local economies: creating resilient places<br />www.cles.org.uk<br />
    23. 23. The development process model<br /><ul><li>Anticipation - being clear on the concept for the place, and why
    24. 24. Initiation - projects that will kick start the process of making the concept ‘real’
    25. 25. Design - turning the concept into physical form and service delivery proposals
    26. 26. Implementation - processes supporting how the place is built
    27. 27. Stewardship - long term maintenance and management necessary to grow place VALUE over time. </li></ul>Scottish Government (2011) Delivering Better Places in Scotland. A guide to learning from broader experience.<br />
    28. 28. Delivering resilient places<br /><ul><li>Effective working relationships between public, commercial but also social partners
    29. 29. Leadership – place delivery must not depend solely upon rules and regulation. Also needs vision and imagination
    30. 30. Important role of the public sector – identifying opportunities, organising partners, providing resources, de-risking projects. Also political dimension
    31. 31. Economic value of place making process – eg through procurement and employment - making better use of the resources that we already have
    32. 32. Place policy = economic policy! –connecting economic development with other policies of place. Resilience model as a tool to support the design and development process.</li></li></ul><li>Steven TolsonDirector Ogilvie Group, RICS<br /> Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling<br />“Delivering Better Places”<br />
    33. 33. Delivering Better Places<br />Investment Inputs Citizens, Developers and the State<br />Steven Tolson<br />
    34. 34. Delivering Better Places in Scotland<br />Delivering Better Places Summary<br />The Place Promoter (Vauban Case Study)<br />Consumer / Citizen Demand, Value, Development Viability and Investment <br />A Delivery Model through Multi Developer Participation<br />
    35. 35. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/336587/0110158.pdf<br />
    36. 36. Place Quality is Important<br />“Too much development in Scotland is a missed opportunity <br />and of mediocre or indifferent quality. “ <br />Scottish Government’s Council of Economic Advisers, First Annual Report, 2008<br />
    37. 37. Good Leadership A Champion who Promotes and stays with the Project<br />A leader drives the project, breeds confidence, reduces risk & widens participation<br />A Place needs a passionate promoter<br />The Leader must galvanise support and delivery<br />The Leader must foster a place making culture<br />A Leader can not be a shrinking violet<br />
    38. 38. Co-ordinated DeliveryJoined up working with NO SILOSAn orchestrated approach where interests are stitched together<br />
    39. 39. Control the spatial development framework<br />A Master Plan is not just a <br />drawing with aspirational statements. <br />A Master Plan should be a proposition <br />that:<br />market tests<br />understands infrastructure requirements <br />development appraisals testing viability (business case)<br />delivery methodology. <br />
    40. 40. Exercise ownership powerParticipation rather than offloading due to fear of risk<br />
    41. 41. Attract funding for advance infrastructure provision<br />Long Term Investment through 30 + year loans <br />
    42. 42. Secure design quality through procurement strategies<br /><ul><li>The State should lead and participate as well as promote.
    43. 43. Making a Place is an Investment (create & manage asset)
    44. 44. Delivery through multi developer participation not single entity </li></ul>A multi developer approach speeds delivery, spreads<br /> risk, creates a competitive environment and produces <br />variety that helps form a socially balanced community<br />
    45. 45. IJBURG<br />
    46. 46. Investment & Stewardship over time<br />Asset Management not Development <br />Cultivate place to gain positive reputation <br />Good stewardship helps enhance value<br />Mains Estate, Milngavie<br />
    47. 47. Pride in Place, Mains Estate, Milngavie <br />Developed by Lovell in 1990. Need sufficient funds to ensure good maintenance but good landscape should achieve good value.<br />
    48. 48. VaubanA New “Green” Community for Freiburg<br />
    49. 49. Vauban - A new place in an Intelligent City helped by a Place Promoter<br />Chief Planner, Professor Wulf Daseking a person with leadership qualities and vitality bringing influence in Freiburg.<br />Daseking and team not only plan they deliver.<br />Also strong political leadership allows focus on long term investment commitment<br />Leaders are prepared to take RISKS<br />
    50. 50. Simple Proposition for Freiburg<br />Freiburg seeks to keep its people in its City.<br />Freiburg leaks young people out of the City in search of affordable accommodation. <br />Young people commute many kilometres between home and work. Bad for the city (congestion), bad for the planet (emissions), bad for social cohesion and bad for city prosperity. <br />Can we do the same in Scotland?<br />
    51. 51. Going home for Lunch in Vauban <br />In Freiburg 24% walk 28% bike, 20% drive and 18% by bus or tram<br />
    52. 52. Individual Houses in Vauban <br />Variety of shapes and sizes. Not outstanding architecture but it doesn’t matter<br />
    53. 53. Vauban Resident’s Car Parking<br />No parking by house with resident Car Parking on the edge of Vauban – Allowed 20 mins to unload by front door<br />
    54. 54. Sustainable Housing producing more energy than used<br />
    55. 55. Market in the Square Vauban<br />Place managed by <br />Vauban Forum Community with Freiburg Municipality.<br />A Mixed Use Place with Housing, Education, Retail, & Offices.<br />
    56. 56. Consumer, Developer and the State<br />
    57. 57. The Place Network Priorities, Risk and Value<br />The Key Players<br />Citizen / Consumer – Long Term Investor<br />Developer & Funders – Short Term Investor<br />State – Long Term Investor<br />
    58. 58. 3 Key Values of the Citizen / Consumer <br />Dominant Group<br />Comfort, Convenience and Familiarity<br />Subordinate Group<br />Opposite values to Dominant Group<br />
    59. 59. House Builder’s Motivations<br />Tried and tested product that:<br />Is familiar and known to sell<br />Is built with relative ease<br />Gets quick statutory consents <br />Has cost price certainty once above DPC level.<br />Is programmed and managed efficiently<br />Minimises RISK<br />House Builders satisfy the Dominant Group’s <br />Values of Comfort, Convenience and Familiarity<br />
    60. 60. Specialist [Creative] Developer<br />Bespoke product that is:<br />Different (less familiar) and value less obvious<br />More complex to design and build<br />More difficult to get statutory consents <br />Less cost certainty<br />More challenging to manage work in progress<br />Carries more RISK and UNCERTAINTY<br />A Specialist Developer’s core customers are likely to be from the Subordinate Group.<br />
    61. 61. Some Issues for Good Quality Urban Development<br />Need clients who appreciate good design and are “informed”. It’s not just about the designer.<br />Urban site characteristics need a design solution that fits (none standard). Therefore, non volume developer has greater opportunity to be competitive<br />However, specialist developer find it more difficult to access funds so development scale limited to equity input<br />Public project procurement barriers due to process and evaluation favours financial strength of corporate entity (risk aversion).<br />
    62. 62. The Burrell Company <br />Edinburgh Projects that fit the Place<br />
    63. 63. Valuation and Funding<br />Mortgage for purchase of completed dwelling<br />Development Project Funding <br />Level of Funding based on Loan to Value (LTV) <br />Mortgage 70%-90% (if you are lucky)<br />Development Funding 60%-70%<br />Loan on value not on price. Therefore the Valuer has an important role to play<br />
    64. 64. Valuation Approach<br />Two valuation elements<br /><ul><li>Occupier Functionality
    65. 65. Investment Value</li></ul>Value of Good Design<br /><ul><li>“Few people treat housing as a work of art” It is a luxury that most can’t afford”.
    66. 66. Premium for Design is possible but only if purchaser is convinced they will get their money back
    67. 67. Premiums more likely where there is “intelligent” design such as green sustainable housing where there are energy savings benefits</li></ul>Valuers don’t value it if the People don’t value it!<br />
    68. 68. The Valuation of a Place<br />What is the ownership interest(s)?<br />Single interests – shopping mall etc. Value based on an investment method – capitalisation of a net rental income.<br />Multi interests –Value based on summation of investments (landlord and tenant) and owner occupation value. <br />Values of individual assets strongly influenced by Place reputation <br />
    69. 69. Better Places in Multi Ownership?<br />Single Ownership with good estate management practices – London estates<br />Long term Places in Multi Ownership. Quality depends on multi owners coming together to establish and care for the Place. But State has reduced its role and self help approach is variable. (note self help is not “convenient”).<br />Possible collective benefit from Place Leasehold arrangement <br />
    70. 70. Good Reputation = Good Value<br />Good Places are not about style but substance<br />Good Places take 20+ years to be recognised. Requires a combination of good physical design, people’s activity and interaction and collective caring for the Place.<br />Valuers don’t think that good architecture represents higher values but they do recognise that a place’s reputation will be reflected in market demand and value. <br />Place making design does have long term value<br />
    71. 71. Lessons from Continental Europe<br />More sociability with less concern over privacy. <br />Continentals love their cars but also use public transport.<br />State is active in making places, adopts a long term investment approach and takes risks.<br />Planners have greater respect and are at the top table<br />State limits the scale of developers participation. There is wider participation from individuals and small companies.<br />Greater variety achieved giving consumer choice. <br />
    72. 72.
    73. 73. Familiarity <br />A modern application of a<br />recognised housing form.<br />
    74. 74.
    75. 75.
    76. 76. 32no Town Houses<br />12no Detached Houses<br />Block 102m x 92m<br />48 dwellings per hectare<br />
    77. 77. Hypothetical Development Appraisal for Infrastructure and Housing Development<br />Housing Development Serviced Land Valuation<br />32no Town Houses @ £200,000 (Parc URC @ £180k) £6,400,000<br />12no Detached Houses @ £256,000 £3,072,000<br />Gross Development Value £9,472,000<br />Development Costs £7,232,406<br />Site Value after fees & finance £1,962,255 <br /> (£44,597 per plot)<br />Infrastructure Development Valuation (non serviced land)<br />Gross Development Value £1,962,255<br />Infrastructure Costs £883,048<br />Site Value after fees & finance £999,671<br /> (£22,720 per plot)<br />
    78. 78. Cost of Quality<br />Evidence from Exemplars suggest design quality cost around 20% more than conventional development costs.<br />There is no evidence that developers can recover this additional cost therefore the impact is on land value.<br />The perimeter block value based on 20% design cost premium reduces the land value from £1,962,000 to £21,000. (NIL VALUE)<br />
    79. 79. Delivery through a Multi Developer Approach<br />Europe - State is the Place Developer<br />Scotland - public sector has assets but is risk averse <br />Serviced sites sold to multi developers (volume, small builders, housing co-ops, associations and individuals for serviced plots)<br />Greater range of dwellings creates healthy competition, quick delivery and a balanced community.<br />Public sector has access to relatively long term finance whereas private sector has little equity and debt is difficult. <br />Public sector needs to use its covenant strength and think about guarantees. Public sector needs to take more risks. <br />
    80. 80. Public Sector Partner<br />Private Sector <br />Partner<br />Developer<br />Agreements<br />Shareholders <br />Asset Management<br />Development Management<br />Loan<br />Construction<br />JV Place<br />Developer<br />Equity Cash Match for Assets<br />Land Asset<br />External<br />Private Debt <br />Funders <br />Multi Developer Delivery Approach<br />Development Agreements<br />Public Loans<br />PWLB <br />Jessica <br />TIFS etc<br />Developer <br />“A”<br />Developer <br />“B”<br />Developer <br />“C”<br />Developer <br />“D”<br />
    81. 81. Summary<br />We need creative informed Leaders who can inspire a change of culture. These leaders should be at the Top Table of Decision Making<br />Get clear and consistent joined up design policies. <br />We need a switch to long term investment having faith that good place making will bring value in the end. <br />Place makers need to have skills in economics and delivery<br />We should refrain from talking about style and concentrate on the real ingredients of place; PEOPLE! <br />We should not be frightened to take a risk<br />
    82. 82. FURTHERREADING<br />PLACE MAKING DELIVERY<br />Urban Design in the Real Estate Development Process<br />Steve Tiesdell <br />& David Adams<br />Wiley – <br />Blackwell<br />
    83. 83. September 2011<br />
    84. 84. COFFEE BREAK<br />
    85. 85. Tom SteeleNHS Forth Valley<br /> Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling<br />“Delivering Better Places”<br />
    86. 86. Making the Most of Property & AssetsDeveloping a Property & Asset Management Strategy (PAMS) for publicly supported bodies in Forth Valley<br />Tom SteeleDirector of Strategic Projects & Property, NHS Forth Valley<br />
    87. 87. Current Context<br />The Christie Commission highlights the opportunity presented by asset management and supports a more strategic and joined up approach amongst public sector bodies: “We recommend all relevant public bodies must participate in the preparation of a joint long-term asset management plan under the aegis of each local community planning partnership, based on a shared assessment of the current conditions of their assets”.<br />Scottish Futures Trust, Improving asset management Across the Scottish Public Sector.<br />John Swinney, Spending Review announcement, 21st September.<br />
    88. 88. The Challenge to be addressed<br />Too many buildings, often located in the wrong places, unsuitable for delivering today’s customer focused services and modern working practices, occupied by individual organisations/services rather than local partnerships, and wasting scarce financial and environmental resources.<br />
    89. 89. FORTHVALLEY<br />
    90. 90. ALLOA<br />FORTHVALLEY<br />
    91. 91. The Publicly Supported Bodies in Forth Valley<br />NHS Forth Valley<br />Stirling Council<br />Clackmannanshire Council<br />Falkirk Council<br />Central Scotland Police<br />Forth Valley College<br />Central Scotland Fire & Rescue Service<br />University of Stirling<br />Scottish Ambulance Service<br />
    92. 92. Forth Valley Publicly Supported Bodies Property Portfolio<br />
    93. 93. Why are we doing this?<br />Mandatory requirement <br />One of the SG new policy aims is “To support and facilitate joint asset planning and management with other public sector organisations”<br />A recent Health Facilities Scotland literature review identified circa 30 different reviews/studies<br />
    94. 94. Why are we doing this?<br />Provides a stable base from which strategic asset investment decisions can be made (Hub) – How can these investment decisions be made without having a PAMS?<br />Efficient management of the publicly supported sector’s asset base is critical to the delivery and performance of public services - facilitating change and performance improvement as well as enhancing service users’ experience.<br />
    95. 95. Aim of the Forth Valley PAMS<br />The overall aim of this initiative is to ensure that all of these bodies invest their public funding in relation to property and assets in ways that supports the Scottish Government's national priorities and vision for a Scotland that is Wealthier and Fairer; Smarter; Healthier; Safer and Stronger, and Greener.<br />
    96. 96. The PAMS Process<br /><ul><li>Where are we now?
    97. 97. Where do we want to be?
    98. 98. How do we get there?
    99. 99. Who is responsible for delivering it?
    100. 100. How will we know we have achieved what we set out to do?
    101. 101. Implementing the Performance Monitoring </li></ul> Methodology in the new Guidance<br />
    102. 102. The Past Strategy<br />Past Strategy has been “Replace old with new”<br />Despite relatively healthy capital programmes over recent decades – much of the “old” remains & backlog maintenance continues to grow<br />Economic climate for next decade certainly makes such a strategy highly unaffordable in terms of both capital and revenue<br />
    103. 103. The FutureStrategy<br />Makes better use of the existing property portfolio rather than spending capital on new buildings and rationalises the existing estate, using the best buildings which are customer centred, good quality, efficient and sustainable<br />Facilitates and enables joined-up partnership working which in turn will further drive down the size of the overall estate and release revenue and achieve carbon savings<br />
    104. 104. Opportunities for improvement<br />Improved utilisation of existing space within individual organisations through elimination of under used and surplus accommodation<br />Shared use of space/buildings across the publicly supported bodies<br />Development of “New Ways of Working” <br />Support & back office services integrated across the publicly supported bodies<br />
    105. 105. A Continuum of Change<br />
    106. 106. Option Appraisal<br />A detailed appraisal of three points on the continuum of change (three options)<br /><ul><li>Do minimum
    107. 107. Reference Project
    108. 108. More ambitious project</li></ul>Note: These are not three conventional options - they are points on the continuum of change that we have selected for examination. <br />
    109. 109. But...its not easy!<br />
    110. 110. Next Steps<br />Technical and feasibility studies<br />Draw on best practice examples from within Forth Valley<br />Systematic review of settlements including stakeholder and public engagement taking account of demographic need and travel planning<br />Outline implementation plan for the preferred way forward<br />Performance Monitoring Plan to enable progress against the implementation plan to be measured in terms of performance and impact. <br />
    111. 111. Summary<br />A catalyst and enabler for service integration and improvement<br />Must be inherently flexible – to allow opportunistic projects to be undertaken<br />Best practice asset management – leading to informed investment decision making<br />Given the Spending Review implications for capital and revenue – do nothing is not an option <br />Never been a better time for doing this – hopefully strategic asset management will always be done this way in the future<br />
    112. 112. Questions/Comments<br />
    113. 113.
    114. 114. Max Hislop<br />Glasgow Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership<br /> Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling<br />“Delivering Better Places”<br />
    115. 115. Liveable Places: Green Networks<br />Max Hislop Programme Manager, GCV Green Network Partnership<br />
    116. 116. Overview<br />Green Networks<br />Green Networks v Green Infrastructure<br />Integrating Green Infrastructure<br />IGI Design Studies<br />Key lessons<br />
    117. 117. National Planning Framework 2<br />Central Scotland Green Network:<br />“… A strategic network of woodland and other habitats, active travel routes, greenspace links, watercourses and waterways, providing an enhanced setting for development and other land uses and improved opportunities for outdoor recreation and cultural activity”<br />
    118. 118. The CSGN: regional partnerships<br />
    119. 119. GCV Joint Structure Plan 2000<br /><ul><li>a landscape to enhance identity
    120. 120. walking and cycling routes;
    121. 121. linked habitats;
    122. 122. an environment to attract investment; </li></li></ul><li>GCV Green Network: Outcomes<br />STRONGER COMMUNITIES<br />well-designed, sustainable places to live<br />HEALTH IMPROVEMENT<br />attractive locations in which to exercise or relax<br />BIODIVERSITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT<br />robust diverse habitats and adaptation to climate change<br />ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT<br />attractive locations for businesses, tourism and employees<br />
    123. 123. Green Networks v Green Infrastructure<br />What is Green Infrastructure?<br />“Those design elements within developments that contribute to the delivery of the Green Network, brought together in a place-making masterplan.”<br />GCVGNP IGI Seminar, March 2011<br />
    124. 124. Integrated Urban Infrastructure<br />
    125. 125. Integrated GreenInfrastructure<br />
    126. 126. Why ‘Integration’?<br />“Quality places work well because the necessary physical and social infrastructure is planned and provided as an integral part of the overall development programme.”<br />
    127. 127. Why ‘Integration’?<br />“The design of external spaces is as important a masterplan consideration as the design of the buildings…<br />Unfortunately, in some proposals it was evident that the landscape had been dealt with as an afterthought, and that open spaces were residual – the parts left over once road and plot layouts had been determined”<br />
    128. 128. Integrating Green Infrastructure<br />5 Design Elements<br />
    129. 129. Scottish LegislationWater Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) RegulationsGBR 10<br />(a) All reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the discharge shall not result in pollution to the water environment<br />the discharge shall not contain any water run-off from any built developments…<br /> …unless following construction those developments or construction sites are drained by a SUD system equipped to avoid pollution of the water environment;<br />10. Discharge …. from a surface water drainage system to the water environment …..<br />SUDS are the law!<br />
    130. 130. Water management<br />Sustainable Urban Drainage<br />Reduce Flooding<br />Reduce Pollution<br />SUDS v Naturalised SUDS<br />Filter strips<br />Green Roofs<br />Pervious surfaces<br />Swales<br />Detention basins<br />Ponds and wetlands<br />
    131. 131. Water management<br />1. Policy<br />2. Current conditions<br />3. Design Study inputs<br />The use of SUDS is seen as a primary objective by the Government.<br />The aim of SUDS is to mimic natural drainage.<br />Watercourses should not be culverted as part of a new development … and existing culverts should be opened whenever possible.<br />The area of impermeable surface should be kept to a minimum in all new developments<br />
    132. 132. Access networks<br />Networks provide<br />opportunities for physical activity <br />access to the outdoors<br />increased accessibility within settlements<br />(Scottish Planning Policy, 2010)<br />Paths/Cycle paths<br />Signage, Lighting, Surface quality<br />Shared or segregated<br />Walkable Neighbourhoods<br />
    133. 133. Access networks<br />3. Design Study inputs<br />2. Current conditions<br />1. Policy<br /><ul><li>Street layouts should …allow walkable access to local amenities
    134. 134. New open space and other facilities should be accessible on foot and bicycle
    135. 135. …planning authorities and developers should identify opportunities to create and enhance networks between open spaces and avoid fragmentation.</li></li></ul><li>Habitat networks<br />Encourage connectivity between habitats to improve:<br />viability of species<br />viability of isolated ecosystems<br />adaptation to climate change <br />(Scottish Planning Policy, 2010)<br />Habitat:<br />Woodland<br />Wetland<br />Grassland<br />Retention and mitigation<br />Creation and Management<br />
    136. 136. Habitat networks<br />3. Design Study inputs<br />2. Current conditions<br />1. Policy<br /><ul><li>A strategic approach to natural heritage … linked together in integrated habitat networks can make an important contribution to … biodiversity.
    137. 137. Planning Authorities should seek to prevent further fragmentation or isolation …and identify opportunities to restore links
    138. 138. …should seek benefits for species and habitats from new development</li></li></ul><li>Green and open space<br />Important for our quality of life:<br />social interactions and community well-being<br />interaction with nature<br />character/identity of a place<br />Connecting them in a green network provides enhanced benefits<br />(Planning & Open Space, PAN 65, 2008)<br />Formal<br />Parks, gardens, playspace, sports areas, cemeteries and allotments<br />Informal<br />Amenity and natural greenspace<br />Quality – fit for purpose<br />
    139. 139. Green & open space<br />3. Design Study inputs<br />2. Current conditions<br />1. Policy<br />The open space strategy …should be taken into account when preparing development plans and deciding planning applications.<br />Local development plans …should set out specific requirements for the provision of open space as part of new development …how much, of what type and quality<br />
    140. 140. Stewardship over time<br />Arrangements for management, aftercare and maintenance may be as important as the actual design<br />(Designing Places, 2001)<br />Maintenance<br />to preserve the condition of spaces<br />Management<br />a long-term perspective<br />flexible to respond to needs<br />(Planning & Open Space, 2008)<br />
    141. 141. Stewardship over time<br />3. Design Study inputs<br />2. Current conditions<br />1. Policy<br />Planning authorities and developers should :<br />aim to create new open spaces which are fit for purpose, maintained and sustainable over the long term.<br />work together to ensure that proper arrangements are in place for the long term management of any proposed open space<br />
    142. 142. Jackton and the Gill Burn Valley<br />
    143. 143. Reinforce Jackton <br />Control the urban edge<br />Create identifiable neighbourhoods<br />Enhance the Gil Burn Valley<br />
    144. 144. Before and After<br />
    145. 145. key lessons:<br />IGI delivers green spaces which are multi-functional and valued<br />Spatial analyses are available to inform the design process<br />Surface water management should be the starting point – not the road layout<br />Access & Habitat Networks can be aligned with ‘naturalised’ SUDS<br />Stewardship of the resource should be designed in to sustain quality and outcomes<br />
    146. 146. 3 key questions:<br />Achieve better outcomes for people<br />Make better use of resources & assets<br />Spatial implications – what goes where?<br />
    147. 147. Thanks for your time<br />www.gcvgreennetwork.gov.uk<br />
    148. 148.
    149. 149. Workshop 1<br /><ul><li>what are the barriers to ‘Delivering Better Places?
    150. 150. how can we overcome barriers working collaboratively? </li></ul> Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling<br />Meeting room 1<br />2nd Floor<br />Meeting room 2<br />2nd Floor<br />Attic<br />Top Floor<br />Bar area<br />This Floor<br />Auditorium<br />This Floor<br />
    151. 151. End Day 1<br />
    152. 152.
    153. 153.
    154. 154.
    155. 155.
    156. 156. DiarmaidLawlorHead of Urbanism, A+DS<br /> Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling<br />“Delivering Better Places”<br />
    157. 157.
    158. 158. housing<br />business<br />leisure<br />mixed<br />other<br />potential development sites/soft targets<br />
    159. 159. dunblane<br />forres<br />potential development sites/soft targets<br />
    160. 160. capacity analysis<br />approx area 375ha<br />context<br />SUBURBAN<br />URBAN<br />CENTRE<br />93+DPH<br />35-60DPH<br />69-93DPH<br />density<br />Capacity <br />17000 d<br />30000 d <br />41000 d <br />potential development sites/soft targets<br />60000<br />Population<br />34000<br />82000<br />Guidance<br />SUBURBAN<br />URBAN<br />CENTRE<br />35-60DPH<br />69-93DPH<br />93+DPH<br />Better Neighbourhoods [CABE]<br />Shaping Neighbourhoods [UWE]<br />40-50DPH<br />60-70DPH<br />70+ DPH<br />
    161. 161. spine : focused development along a route<br />80ha of land (approx)<br />Dwellings <br />3600 (45dph)<br />6400 (80dph)<br />8800 (110dph)<br />prioritise……<br />
    162. 162. the spine today <br />in the landscape……<br />
    163. 163. the spine today <br />in the city……<br />
    164. 164. the spine today <br />Welcome to Stirling!<br />
    165. 165. the spine today <br />Welcome to Stirling!<br />in disrepair…..<br />
    166. 166. the spine today <br />Welcome to Stirling!<br />Inhabited…….<br />
    167. 167. the spine: series of spaces<br />
    168. 168. the spine <br />
    169. 169. Castle<br />

    ×