day 1 presentations a
DESCRIPTION
yComposite slideshow of the presentations for Day 1 of the Design Skills Smposium in Stirling, Sep 27, 201TRANSCRIPT
Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling
Design Skills Symposium 2011WelcomeDay 1
Jim MacDonaldChief Executive, A+DS
“Delivering Better Places”
Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling
design skills symposiumdelivering better places
Kevin MurrayChairman, Academy of UrbanismDirector, Kevin Murray Associates
why is DBP important?
Kilmarnock - Initial analysis and recommendations
Kilmarnock - Initial analysis and recommendations
taking responsibility
the team is changing….
aims for day 1
1 reflect on your own experience …and that of others
2 what are the barriers to DBP?
3 how might these be overcome …collaboratively?
day 1
Stirling context Peter MorganLocal economic development Sarah LonglandsPlace & development economics Steve Tolson
Health & places Tom SteeleGreen networks, ecology Max HislopWorkshop 1Plenary
day 2
Focus on your ideas around
• concept development• solutions in placemaking• collaboration and integration
day 3
• making it all happen• how to deliver• idea development to implementation
• learning from each other – peer review
Peter MorganChief Planning Officer, Stirling Council
“Delivering Better Places”
Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling
“Delivering Better Places”
Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling
Sarah LonglandsResearch Associate, Centre for Local Economic Strategies
Local Economic Development: the role of place and diversity
Sarah Longlands
Research Fellow (CLES) Centre for Local Economic Strategies
27th September 2011
Why do we need a new story for economic development?
We’ve had more than a decade of economic development but inequality between and within places has grown. Many places still struggle. Why?
Process of place making and objectives of economic development are not always well aligned and frequently disjointed
Legacy of regeneration suggests we need to look again at who really benefits from place-making?
Curitiba, Brazil Integration of economic, spatial and transport planning
‘A city designed for people not planners’
Final thought......here mixing doesn’t happen
Who are the place makers?Paraisopolis, Sao Paulo
A better place = a ‘resilient’ place
“Resilience is the capacity of a system to deal with negative change without collapsing, to withstand shocks, and to rebuild itself and learn”
Places which go.....
Resilience
McInroy & Longlands (2010) Productive local economies: creating resilient placeswww.cles.org.uk
The development process model
• Anticipation - being clear on the concept for the place,
and why• Initiation - projects that will kick start the process of
making the concept ‘real’ • Design - turning the concept into physical form and service
delivery proposals • Implementation - processes supporting how the place is
built• Stewardship - long term maintenance and management
necessary to grow place VALUE over time. Scottish Government (2011) Delivering Better Places in Scotland. A guide to learning from broader experience.
Delivering resilient places • Effective working relationships between public,
commercial but also social partners• Leadership – place delivery must not depend solely upon
rules and regulation. Also needs vision and imagination• Important role of the public sector – identifying
opportunities, organising partners, providing resources, de-risking projects. Also political dimension
• Economic value of place making process – eg through procurement and employment - making better use of the resources that we already have
• Place policy = economic policy! –connecting economic development with other policies of place. Resilience model as a tool to support the design and development process.
“Delivering Better Places”
Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling
Steven TolsonDirector Ogilvie Group, RICS
Investment Inputs Citizens, Developers and the State
Steven Tolson
Delivering Better Places
Delivering Better Places in Scotland
• Delivering Better Places Summary• The Place Promoter (Vauban Case Study)• Consumer / Citizen Demand, Value,
Development Viability and Investment • A Delivery Model through Multi Developer
Participation
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/336587/0110158.pdf
Place Quality is Important
“Too much development in Scotland is a missed opportunity and of mediocre or indifferent quality. “
Scottish Government’s Council of Economic Advisers, First Annual Report, 2008
Good Leadership A Champion who Promotes and stays with the Project
• A leader drives the project, breeds confidence, reduces risk & widens participation
• A Place needs a passionate promoter
• The Leader must galvanise support and delivery
• The Leader must foster a place making culture
• A Leader can not be a shrinking violet
Co-ordinated DeliveryJoined up working with NO SILOS
An orchestrated approach where interests are stitched together
Control the spatial development framework
A Master Plan is not just a drawing with aspirational statements.
A Master Plan should be a proposition that:
• market tests• understands infrastructure
requirements • development appraisals testing
viability (business case)• delivery methodology.
Exercise ownership powerParticipation rather than offloading due to fear of risk
Attract funding for advance infrastructure provision
Long Term Investment through 30 + year loans
Secure design quality through procurement strategies
• The State should lead and participate as well as promote.
• Making a Place is an Investment (create & manage asset)
• Delivery through multi developer participation not single entity
A multi developer approach speeds delivery, spreads
risk, creates a competitive environment and produces
variety that helps form a socially balanced community
IJBURG
Investment & Stewardship over time
• Asset Management not Development
• Cultivate place to gain positive reputation
• Good stewardship helps enhance value
Mains Estate, Milngavie
Pride in Place, Mains Estate, Milngavie Developed by Lovell in 1990. Need sufficient funds to ensure good
maintenance but good landscape should achieve good value.
Vauban
A New “Green” Community for Freiburg
Vauban - A new place in an Intelligent City helped by a Place Promoter
• Chief Planner, Professor Wulf Daseking a person with leadership qualities and vitality bringing influence in Freiburg.
• Daseking and team not only plan they deliver.
• Also strong political leadership allows focus on long term investment commitment
Leaders are prepared to take RISKS
Simple Proposition for Freiburg
• Freiburg seeks to keep its people in its City.• Freiburg leaks young people out of the City in search
of affordable accommodation. • 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.
Can we do the same in Scotland?
Going home for Lunch in Vauban In Freiburg 24% walk 28% bike, 20% drive and 18% by bus or tram
Individual Houses in Vauban Variety of shapes and sizes. Not outstanding architecture but it doesn’t matter
Vauban Resident’s Car Parking
No parking by house with resident Car Parking on the edge of Vauban – Allowed 20 mins to unload by front door
Sustainable Housing producing more energy than used
Market in the Square Vauban
Place managed by
Vauban Forum Community with Freiburg Municipality.
A Mixed Use Place with Housing, Education, Retail,
& Offices.
Consumer, Developer and the State
Plot Purchase / Tax State
PlaceInfrastructure
TaxCitizen /
Customer
Property Purchas
e
Developer
The Place Network Priorities, Risk and Value
The Key Players
• Citizen / Consumer – Long Term Investor• Developer & Funders – Short Term Investor• State – Long Term Investor
3 Key Values of the Citizen / Consumer
Dominant GroupComfort, Convenience and Familiarity
Subordinate Group Opposite values to Dominant Group
House Builder’s Motivations
Tried and tested product that:1. Is familiar and known to sell2. Is built with relative ease3. Gets quick statutory consents 4. Has cost price certainty once above DPC level.5. Is programmed and managed efficiently6. Minimises RISK
House Builders satisfy the Dominant Group’s Values of Comfort, Convenience and Familiarity
Specialist [Creative] Developer
Bespoke product that is:1. Different (less familiar) and value less obvious2. More complex to design and build3. More difficult to get statutory consents 4. Less cost certainty5. More challenging to manage work in progress6. Carries more RISK and UNCERTAINTYA Specialist Developer’s core customers are likely to
be from the Subordinate Group.
Some Issues for Good Quality Urban Development
• Need clients who appreciate good design and are “informed”. It’s not just about the designer.
• Urban site characteristics need a design solution that fits (none standard). Therefore, non volume developer has greater opportunity to be competitive
• However, specialist developer find it more difficult to access funds so development scale limited to equity input
• Public project procurement barriers due to process and evaluation favours financial strength of corporate entity (risk aversion).
The Burrell Company Edinburgh Projects that
fit the Place
Valuation and Funding
• Mortgage for purchase of completed dwelling• Development Project Funding
Level of Funding based on Loan to Value (LTV) Mortgage 70%-90% (if you are lucky)Development Funding 60%-70%
Loan on value not on price. Therefore the Valuer has an important role to play
Valuation Approach• Two valuation elements
- Occupier Functionality- Investment Value
• Value of Good Design- “Few people treat housing as a work of art” It is a
luxury that most can’t afford”.- Premium for Design is possible but only if purchaser
is convinced they will get their money back- Premiums more likely where there is “intelligent”
design such as green sustainable housing where there are energy savings benefits
Valuers don’t value it if the People don’t value it!
The Valuation of a Place• What is the ownership interest(s)?• Single interests – shopping mall etc. Value
based on an investment method – capitalisation of a net rental income.
• Multi interests –Value based on summation of investments (landlord and tenant) and owner occupation value.
• Values of individual assets strongly influenced by Place reputation
Better Places in Multi Ownership?
• Single Ownership with good estate management practices – London estates
• 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”).
• Possible collective benefit from Place Leasehold arrangement
Good Reputation = Good Value• Good Places are not about style but substance• 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.
• 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.
Place making design does have long term value
Lessons from Continental Europe
• More sociability with less concern over privacy. • Continentals love their cars but also use public transport.• State is active in making places, adopts a long term
investment approach and takes risks.• Planners have greater respect and are at the top table• State limits the scale of developers participation. There
is wider participation from individuals and small companies.
• Greater variety achieved giving consumer choice.
Familiarity
A modern application of a
recognised housing form.
Urban Housing Block of Town Houses and Detached Based on Ijburg Typology
32no Town Houses
12no Detached Houses
Block 102m x 92m
48 dwellings per hectare
Hypothetical Development Appraisal for Infrastructure and Housing Development
Housing Development Serviced Land Valuation
32no Town Houses @ £200,000 (Parc URC @ £180k) £6,400,000
12no Detached Houses @ £256,000 £3,072,000
Gross Development Value £9,472,000
Development Costs £7,232,406
Site Value after fees & finance £1,962,255
(£44,597 per plot)
Infrastructure Development Valuation (non serviced land)
Gross Development Value £1,962,255
Infrastructure Costs £883,048
Site Value after fees & finance £999,671
(£22,720 per plot)
Cost of Quality
• Evidence from Exemplars suggest design quality cost around 20% more than conventional development costs.
• There is no evidence that developers can recover this additional cost therefore the impact is on land value.
• The perimeter block value based on 20% design cost premium reduces the land value from £1,962,000 to £21,000. (NIL VALUE)
Delivery through a Multi Developer Approach• Europe - State is the Place Developer• Scotland - public sector has assets but is risk averse • Serviced sites sold to multi developers (volume, small
builders, housing co-ops, associations and individuals for serviced plots)
• Greater range of dwellings creates healthy competition, quick delivery and a balanced community.
• Public sector has access to relatively long term finance whereas private sector has little equity and debt is difficult.
• Public sector needs to use its covenant strength and think about guarantees. Public sector needs to take more risks.
Public Sector Partner
JV PlaceDeveloper
Private Sector
PartnerDeveloper
Equity Cash Match for Assets
AgreementsShareholders
Asset ManagementDevelopment Management
LoanConstruction
ExternalPrivate Debt
Funders
Public LoansPWLB Jessica TIFS etc
Developer “A”
Developer “B”
Developer “C”
Developer “D”
Multi Developer Delivery Approach
Development Agreements
Land Asset
Summary• We need creative informed Leaders who can inspire a
change of culture. These leaders should be at the Top Table of Decision Making
• Get clear and consistent joined up design policies. • We need a switch to long term investment having faith
that good place making will bring value in the end. • Place makers need to have skills in economics and
delivery• We should refrain from talking about style and
concentrate on the real ingredients of place; PEOPLE! • We should not be frightened to take a risk
Urban Design in the Real Estate Development
Process
Steve Tiesdell & David Adams
Wiley – Blackwell
FURTHERREADING
PLACE MAKING
DELIVERY
September 2011
COFFEE BREAK
“Delivering Better Places”
Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling
Tom SteeleNHS Forth Valley
Making the Most of Property & AssetsDeveloping a Property & Asset Management Strategy (PAMS) for publicly supported bodies in
Forth Valley
Tom SteeleDirector of Strategic Projects & Property,
NHS Forth Valley
Current Context
• 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”.
• Scottish Futures Trust, Improving asset management Across the Scottish Public Sector.
• John Swinney, Spending Review announcement, 21st September.
The Challenge to be addressed
• 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.
FORTH VALLEY
FORTH VALLEY
ALLOA
The Publicly Supported Bodies in Forth Valley
NHS Forth ValleyStirling CouncilClackmannanshire CouncilFalkirk CouncilCentral Scotland PoliceForth Valley CollegeCentral Scotland Fire & Rescue ServiceUniversity of StirlingScottish Ambulance Service
Building AreaReplacement
ValueDisposal
Value
Current backlog
maintenance expenditure requirement
Annual Costs
Occupancy – rate, rents, energy, maintenance, cleaning etc
Lifecycle replacement of
building components &
engineering systems
1.1 million sq.m
£4 billion£1
billion£100 million
£55 million per annum
£55 million per annum
Forth Valley Publicly Supported Bodies Property Portfolio
Why are we doing this?
• Mandatory requirement
• One of the SG new policy aims is “To support and
facilitate joint asset planning and management with other
public sector organisations”
• A recent Health Facilities Scotland literature review
identified circa 30 different reviews/studies
Why are we doing this?
• 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?
• 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.
Aim of the Forth Valley PAMS
• 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.
The PAMS Process
Where are we now?
Where do we want to be?
How do we get there?
• Who is responsible for delivering it?• How will we know we have achieved what we set out
to do?• Implementing the Performance Monitoring
Methodology in the new Guidance
The Past Strategy
• Past Strategy has been “Replace old with new”
• Despite relatively healthy capital programmes over
recent decades – much of the “old” remains & backlog
maintenance continues to grow
• Economic climate for next decade certainly makes such
a strategy highly unaffordable in terms of both capital
and revenue
The Future Strategy
• 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
• 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
Opportunities for improvement
• Improved utilisation of existing space within individual
organisations through elimination of under used and
surplus accommodation
• Shared use of space/buildings across the publicly
supported bodies
• Development of “New Ways of Working”
• Support & back office services integrated across the
publicly supported bodies
A Continuum of Change
Option Appraisal
• A detailed appraisal of three points on the continuum of change (three options)
Do minimum Reference ProjectMore ambitious project
Note: These are not three conventional options - they are points on the continuum of change that we have selected for examination.
But...its not easy!
Property Groupings Property Types
Reduction in Space Option 1
Do MinimumOption 2
Reference Project
Option 3More Ambitious
Project
10% 15% 25%
PPP/PFI Properties
Hospitals
0% 0% 0%Health Centres
Offices
Building dependent & regionally dependent properties
Non-PPP/PFI Hospitals 25% 40% 65%
Residential Homes & Day Centres 25% 40% 60%
Regionally dependent but not building dependentNon PPP/PFI Health Centres & Clinics 25% 40% 60%
Staff Residential 100% 100% 100%
Building & regionally independentIndustrial / Stores 25% 45% 60%
Offices / Administration 22% 30% 60%
Next Steps
• Technical and feasibility studies
• Draw on best practice examples from within Forth Valley
• Systematic review of settlements including stakeholder
and public engagement taking account of demographic
need and travel planning
• Outline implementation plan for the preferred way
forward
• Performance Monitoring Plan to enable progress against
the implementation plan to be measured in terms of
performance and impact.
Summary
• A catalyst and enabler for service integration and
improvement• Must be inherently flexible – to allow opportunistic
projects to be undertaken• Best practice asset management – leading to informed
investment decision making• Given the Spending Review implications for capital and
revenue – do nothing is not an option • Never been a better time for doing this – hopefully
strategic asset management will always be done this way in the future
Questions/Comments
“Delivering Better Places”
Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling
Max HislopGlasgow Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership
Design Skills Symposium
Liveable Places: Green Networks
Max Hislop Programme Manager, GCV Green Network Partnership
Liveable places: Green Networks
Overview
• Green Networks• Green Networks v Green Infrastructure• Integrating Green Infrastructure• IGI Design Studies• Key lessons
Liveable places: Green Networks
National Planning Framework 2
Central Scotland Green Network:
“… 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”
Liveable places: Green Networks
The CSGN: regional partnerships
Liveable places: Green Networks
GCV Joint Structure Plan 2000
• a landscape to enhance identity• walking and cycling routes; • linked habitats; • an environment to attract investment;
Liveable places: Green Networks
GCV Green Network: Outcomes
• STRONGER COMMUNITIES– well-designed, sustainable places to live
• HEALTH IMPROVEMENT– attractive locations in which to exercise or relax
• BIODIVERSITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT– robust diverse habitats and adaptation to climate
change
• ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT– attractive locations for businesses, tourism and
employees
Liveable places: Green Networks
Green Networks v Green Infrastructure
What is Green Infrastructure?
“Those design elements within developments
that contribute to the delivery of the Green Network,
brought together in a place-making masterplan.”
GCVGNP IGI Seminar, March 2011
Integrated Urban Infrastructure
Integrated Green Infrastructure
Liveable places: Green Networks
Why ‘Integration’?
“Quality places work well because the necessary physical and social infrastructure is planned and provided as an integral part of the overall development programme.”
Liveable places: Green Networks
Why ‘Integration’?
“The design of external spaces is as important a masterplan consideration as the design of the buildings…
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”
Liveable places: Green Networks
Integrating Green Infrastructure
• 5 Design Elements
Liveable places: Green Networks
Scottish LegislationWater Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) RegulationsGBR 10
10.Discharge …. from a surface water drainage system to the water environment …..
(a) All reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the discharge shall not result in pollution to the water environment
(d) the discharge shall not contain any water run-off from any built developments…
…unless following construction those developments or construction sites are drained by a SUD system equipped to avoid pollution of the water environment;SUDS are th
e law!
Liveable places: Green Networks
Water management
• Sustainable Urban Drainage– Reduce Flooding– Reduce Pollution
• SUDS v Naturalised SUDS– Filter strips– Green Roofs– Pervious surfaces– Swales– Detention basins– Ponds and wetlands
Liveable places: Green Networks
Water management
•The use of SUDS is seen as a primary objective by the Government.•The aim of SUDS is to mimic natural drainage.•Watercourses should not be culverted as part of a new development … and existing culverts should be opened whenever possible.•The area of impermeable surface should be kept to a minimum in all new developments
1. Policy2. Current conditions3. Design Study inputs
Liveable places: Green Networks
Access networks
• Networks provide– opportunities for physical activity – access to the outdoors– increased accessibility within
settlements
(Scottish Planning Policy, 2010)
• Paths/Cycle paths– Signage, Lighting, Surface
quality– Shared or segregated
• Walkable Neighbourhoods
Liveable places: Green Networks
Access networks3. Design Study inputs2. Current conditions1. Policy
•Street layouts should …allow walkable access to local amenities•New open space and other facilities should be accessible on foot and bicycle •…planning authorities and developers should identify opportunities to create and enhance networks between open spaces and avoid fragmentation.
Liveable places: Green Networks
Habitat networks
• Encourage connectivity between habitats to improve:– viability of species– viability of isolated
ecosystems– adaptation to climate change
(Scottish Planning Policy, 2010)
• Habitat:– Woodland– Wetland– Grassland
• Retention and mitigation• Creation and Management
Liveable places: Green Networks
Habitat networks3. Design Study inputs2. Current conditions1. Policy
•A strategic approach to natural heritage … linked together in integrated habitat networks can make an important contribution to … biodiversity. •Planning Authorities should seek to prevent further fragmentation or isolation …and identify opportunities to restore links•…should seek benefits for species and habitats from new development
Liveable places: Green Networks
Green and open space
• Important for our quality of life:– social interactions and community
well-being– interaction with nature– character/identity of a place
• Connecting them in a green network provides enhanced benefits
(Planning & Open Space, PAN 65, 2008)
• Formal– Parks, gardens, playspace, sports
areas, cemeteries and allotments
• Informal– Amenity and natural greenspace
• Quality – fit for purpose
Liveable places: Green Networks
Green & open space3. Design Study inputs2. Current conditions1. Policy
•The open space strategy …should be taken into account when preparing development plans and deciding planning applications.
•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
Liveable places: Green Networks
Stewardship over time
• Arrangements for management, aftercare and maintenance may be as important as the actual design
(Designing Places, 2001)
• Maintenance– to preserve the condition of spaces
• Management– a long-term perspective– flexible to respond to needs
(Planning & Open Space, 2008)
Liveable places: Green Networks
Stewardship over time3. Design Study inputs2. Current conditions1. Policy
Planning authorities and developers should :•aim to create new open spaces which are fit for purpose, maintained and sustainable over the long term.
•work together to ensure that proper arrangements are in place for the long term management of any proposed open space
Liveable places: Green Networks
Jackton and the Gill Burn Valley
Liveable places: Green Networks
Reinforce Jackton Control the urban edge
Enhance the Gil Burn Valley Create identifiable neighbourhoods
Liveable places: Green Networks
Before and After
Liveable places: Green Networks
key lessons:
1. IGI delivers green spaces which are multi-functional and valued
2. Spatial analyses are available to inform the design process
3. Surface water management should be the starting point – not the road layout
4. Access & Habitat Networks can be aligned with ‘naturalised’ SUDS
5. Stewardship of the resource should be designed in to sustain quality and outcomes
Liveable places: Green Networks
3 key questions:
• Achieve better outcomes for people
• Make better use of resources & assets
• Spatial implications – what goes where?
Liveable places: Green Networks
Thanks for your time
www.gcvgreennetwork.gov.uk
Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling
Workshop 1• what are the barriers to ‘Delivering Better Places?• how can we overcome barriers working collaboratively?
Meeting room 12nd Floor
Meeting room 22nd Floor
AtticTop Floor
Bar areaThis Floor
AuditoriumThis Floor
End Day 1
“Delivering Better Places”
Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling
Diarmaid LawlorHead of Urbanism, A+DS
pote
nti
al develo
pm
ent
site
s/so
ft t
arg
ets
housing
business
leisure
mixed
other
pote
nti
al develo
pm
ent
site
s/so
ft t
arg
ets
dunblane
forres
Guidance
capacity analysisapprox area 375ha
SUBURBAN URBAN CENTRE
35-60DPH 69-93DPH 93+DPH
40-50DPH 60-70DPH 70+ DPH
context
density
SUBURBAN URBAN CENTRE
35-60DPH 69-93DPH 93+DPH
Capacity 17000 d 30000 d 41000 d
Population 34000 60000 82000
pote
nti
al develo
pm
ent
site
s/so
ft t
arg
ets
Better Neighbourhoods [CABE]
Shaping Neighbourhoods [UWE]
spin
e :
focu
sed
develo
pm
en
t alo
ng
a r
ou
te
80ha of land (approx)
Dwellings
3600 (45dph)
6400 (80dph)
8800 (110dph) prioritise……
the s
pin
e t
od
ay
in the landscape……
the s
pin
e t
od
ay
in the city……
the s
pin
e t
od
ay
Welcome to Stirling!
the s
pin
e t
od
ay
Welcome to Stirling!
in disrepair…..
the s
pin
e t
od
ay
Welcome to Stirling!
Inhabited…….
the s
pin
e:
seri
es
of
space
s
the s
pin
e
Castle