Stakeholders workshop Report

7/29/2019 Stakeholders workshop Report

1/24

1

Report of Workshop Outputs.

Consultative Workshop on the Development Proposals for East Market Street/New Street

Introduction.

This workshop was jointly commissioned by Artisan and the City of Edinburgh Councils Economic

Development function.

The workshop took place on Friday 2nd

November 2012 and the workshop materials and the

workshop facilitator were present at the associated exhibition on the proposed development on the

morning of Saturday 3rd

November 2012.

The Workshop.

The workshop was attended by 15 participants. In addition to the participants representatives from

Artisan, the City of Edinburgh Council, GVA and Weber Shandwick were present in an observing

capacity. (A list of those who attended is shown in Appendix One).

The objective of the workshop was:

To provide a structured opportunity for comments, and the expression of views and ideas by

representatives of stakeholder groups and other interested parties on the proposed developments

in the East Market Street/New Street area.

The Workshop Scope was to deal with:

The southern part of the overall development site this comprises the Ark building and the

adjoining tenement building (Macrae tenement) on the High Street; the south end of New Street;

the Canongate Venture building; the former Council depot on East Market Street; Cranston Street

car park site and the Arches below Jeffrey Street .

The scope did allow for less detailed discussion of linked and peripheral matters related to the whole

site.

The outputs from the workshop were to be compiled and present to the co-sponsors by means ofthis report and through short briefing meetings led by the workshop facilitator.

Workshop Structure

For the purposes of the workshop this southern part of the site was divided into 3 packages of

development. They were:

1. The Old Sailors Ark, the Macrae tenement building on the High Street and the South end ofNew Street.

2. The Canongate Venture building and Cranston Street East.3. The Arches and Jeffrey Street.


2/24

2

The main focus of the workshop was to be on these three areas.

The first work session dealt with introductions and methodology.

The second work session identified the range of issues to be discussed within the core scope of the

workshop. (Some broader site wide issues were also identified ant this stage and they would bereviewed in work session 4 the final session of the workshop).

For the third work session the participants worked in three subgroups with each subgroup having

the opportunity to review each of the three predefined packages of development in some detail.

The fourth work session allowed for discussion of the site wide issues previously identified and

discussion of the ideal next steps.

(The Workshop Slides are shown as Appendix Two).

The outputs contained in this report are set out in a way which reflects the above workshopstructure.

The Workshop Outputs

Work Session Two Identifying the Issues.

Firstly the participants, on and individual basis, identified all of the factors and issues that they

considered relevant for discussion under each of the packages of development identified for the

south side of the site.

Those were as follows:

1. The Old Sailors Ark, Macraes Tenement on the High Street and the South end of New Street.

1. Artisan must re-consider the whole of the Canongate site especially the square and themonolithic office block (master plans to be adjusted to eliminate its faults).

2. Masterplans (so called) can be altered to suit changes in the economy.3. Confine hotel to footprint of Sailors Ark Site.4. Sailors Ark important to retain faade housing?5. Put Hotel on old bus garage site.6. Nature of public square should be discussed/rethought. Especially if 1. Major public space at

CEC front door. 2. More intimate /enclosed street section needed.

7. Shops for residents use, not always for tourists or supermarkets.8. New pend on Canongate inappropriate.9. Level cycle route Princes Street Holyrood through site.10.Pedestrians and cyclists yes; traffic through route no. Shared pedestrian/traffic possible so

long as traffic restricted no rat runs

11.Bridging link? Not needed, spoils views.12.General access controlled. Road crossings encourage pedestrian access/footfall.13.Oppose pedestrianisation of New Street.14.

Surely cant pedestrianise New Street.

15.Canongate residential character. Gap in the Royal Mile from High street needs redesigning.


3/24

3

16.Public Square will be in shade much of the time and windy from the West not pleasantfor sitting out.

17.Road traffic confusion how much traffic in the square? Not clear from drawings.18.Support Pend for pedestrian/cycle access only Parliament Way concept for pedestrians

and cyclists.

19.New Street south should remain accessible to traffic (local access) but improvemanagement. New Street North is a bigger problem.

20. Important to reduce and calm traffic. Important to improve conditions for pedestrians andcyclists. Suggest a plug at south end (Canongate) allows traffic in and out from bottom

only. Proposals for steps is exclusive and unacceptable.

21.The Old Sailors Ark and the linked non listed tenement building on the High Street and theSouth end of New Street.

22.Movement from Canongate/ Royal Mile Explore 2 extremes a. use retained buildings tomark routes; or b. avoid faade retention and propose new buildings fronting Canongate.

23.The facade to be retained along with Macrae flats adjacent.24.Oppose facade retention keep building behind facade.25.Cannot decide questions about New Street/Canongate junction without clarity on traffic

flows generally.

26.Tenement in Royal Mile should be retained as affordable housing (which they always havebeen)

27.Lack of permanent residents in Old Town Affordability important.28.Concern with number of access points into site from Canongate.29.Reduce size of hotel why not have smaller boutique hotels? would suit grain/character.

Additional Comments Made on Saturday:

1. Maintain good quality and arguably socially affordable housing on high street elevation.2. New Street is a historical venous rat run, Reliefs (?) alternative route from Leith to south

side. Pedestrianisation a poor idea traffic management methods.

2. Canongate Venture (CV) and Cranston Street East.

1. Support realignment of Cranston Street so long as easier gradient and tar surface notcobbles.

2. Visitor experience to encourage commercial use of area views, buildings, styles etc.3. Views from Jeffrey Street and Cranston Street towards Calton Hill obscured by building at

end corner of Cranston Street.

4. Views of Calton Hill from Canongate.5. View of needle in Calton Burial Ground from Jeffrey Street and termination of existing

tenements.

6. Building in front of Arches. (Across the street).7. Retain the Canongate Venture.8. The demolition of C listed Building part of Old Town Heritage.9. Is the preservation of Canongate Venture possible? Use conversion to flats (affordable) or

community uses.

10.Economic reuse of Canongate venture as alternative to demolition.


4/24

4

11.Retain the Canongate Venture a useful and handsome building with an interesting history.12.Canongate Venture plinth (platform on which it sits) can be enlivened at street level by

opening up/enlarging the existing windows and used for retail etc.

13.Canongate venture building should be retained and adapted. It suits the site and is ahandsome building and has character. The modern replacement as shown is ugly and

characterless.

14.Location of the hotel.15.How much of the consented scheme remains relevant.16.Make Cranston Street one way or plug it at south end (access for pedestrians/ cycles only

from Canongate).

Additional Comments Made on Saturday:

1. The existing Canongate Venture building may not be adaptable to purpose. Will argue thatthe site will form a community hub with flow from Artisan Arches to Retail; caf; hotel

development.

2. Please retain the Canongate Venture and consider needs of small businesses/ artiststudios.

3. Jeffrey Street/The Arches

1. The view from the Royal Mile over to St Andrews House and from Jeffrey Street is classicallyhistorical (1876?). Would the height of the building in Cranston Street mask the view?

2. The area in the Jeffrey Street over to Cranston Street level off to be a public space lookingsouth.

3. Arches used by small businesses, cafes, workshops etc.4. More places to encourage local craftspeople favourable rates as done in Temple Bar

Dublin.

5. Jeffrey Street Arches potential for creative use bring visitors further into the area.6. Creative workshops in the Arches.7. Use of Jeffery Street Arches by Creative Industries.8. Arches use - workshops possibly? Studios? For sale/rent?9. Support the idea that the Arches are re-furbished and re-used small

shops/cafes/nursery/child care.

10. If using Arches emphasise character.11.Create a 2 way cycle path along the south side of East Market Street by the Arches (footway

currently little used). Reduce carriageway width to calm traffic and introduce other traffic

calming measures.

12.New building on car park site should be 1-2 storeys only to retain views and suitsurroundings. The proposal in the mock up is lacking in character and out of proportion too

high.

13.Possible relocation of Fruitmarket Gallery?Additional Comment Made on Saturday:

1. Preserve views from Jeffrey Street and not just by means of a little peep hole.


5/24

5

Work Session Three Reviewing the Issues.

During this session the participants were encouraged to use a problem solving approach to address

the issues. That approach asked them to consider the position that they held on any aspect of the

development; to seek to identify the underlying issues to that position by applying a simple root

causing technique (the 5 Whys) and finally to identify potential solutions that would resolve the root

cause issues.

Again the outputs from this section are set out in the packages for development used in the previous

section of this report.

1. The Old Sailors Ark and Macraes Tenement on the High Street and the South end of New Street.

Work Group A

(Remember world Heritage Status)

Issues

1. Public Space to be discussed2. Retail think of residents3. Pedestrian/cycling priority/road plottings controversial4. Views5. New Street access?6. Maintain local character7. Keep Ark faade8.

More but smaller hotels

a. Reduce hotel footprintb. Relocate? To south side sun but less walk up

Comments

Use existing buildings to mark route or new buildings? Do we keep faade at all (Ark)? If the back will

not suit what is the point of keeping it?

This argument has 3 strands/conflicts.

Consider what the area is currently used for not just what it might be used for.

Its about how its done more than what it is in this particular location (not the whole site uses

still to be clarified).

Clarify front door of Hotel unclear from plans Royal Mile or Square?

Designs need to be improved for clarity in places.

Move hotel to bottom of Cranston Street?

Think about character of area.


6/24

6

Work Group B

1. Retain housing on/in the Canongate.2. Mix of uses

a. Housingb. Retail (lacking useful retail for the residents e.g. food shops/bakery etc. rather than

tourist shops).

c. Day and night activitiesd. Encourage movement and keep the place alive

3. Question over New Streeta. Not singular traffic route, create more permeable dvnt (?) ( to reduce congestion)b. Traffic management.

4. No bridging linka. Hotel on one side of street or two hotelsb. Looks horriblec. Not a nice spaced. Activate street insteade. Blocks viewsf. Bridge over street very ugly like a bad 1960 new town

5. Building design should be appropriate to the context size; shape and materials.a. Examples Sugarhouse Close/Lawnmarket South

Work Group C

The outputs from this workgroup were largely graphical. As a result it has been photographed for

inclusion in this report.


7/24

7

2. Canongate Venture (CV) and Cranston Street East.

Work Group B

1. CV adds history and character do not lose it dont have to minor repairs neededa. Great space insideb. Should be retained

2. Retain CV - maybe as an art space but activate facades to streeta. Basement of CV on East Market Street could be opened upb. Improve entry to CV

3. CV suggested usesa. Housingb. Arts link with Jeffery Street Arches? connect along East Market Streetc. Officesd. Community uses

4. Never go to Caltongate site there is no reason to! Give us a reason!!!General Comments Site Wide/Overarching:

1. Communication ofArchitecture on the site needs to be explained:a. How it fits with world heritage site


8/24

8

b. Something that couldnt go everywhere/anywhere2. What about tourists??

Work Group C

Work Group A

Issues (In no particular Order)

1. Views2. Demolition of Canongate Venture?3. Uses and attracting footfall.4. Layout of roads.5. Location of Hotel?6. Movement of pedestrians.

Potential solutions/Opinions

1. East Cranston Street:a. Realignment is associated (an advantage?) with retaining an open prospect vs. is it

just creating a big site to enable more development?

2. Propose more pedestrian routes from East Market St to Canongate.3. Streetscape use more than one architect to provide variety.4.

Use space to enliven and create life street activation.

5. Could Council enliven East Market Street side?


9/24

9

6. Use Venture plinth build a caf/shop retain CV.7. Views dont build too high!8. Hotel what about bottom of Cranston Street9. Consider development of car park site at Council front door East Market Street10.CV reuse not demolition its full of character and history. Fit old with new it works

elsewhere. Its an easily adaptable building with community value.

3. Jeffrey Street/The Arches

Work Group C

1. Positionsa. Arches refurbished and reused for small businesses mixed use creative activities

(night time activities). Important to accentuate the arch shape in the elevation. The

reuse of the arches would add greatly to Market Street.

b. Loading on East Market Street Parking needed, but should not be a primaryconcern.c. View from High Street through Jeffrey Street important must be protected. Should

Cranston Street be realigned to facilitate this?

d. No buildings out of scale with existing buildings.2. Potential solutions

a. East market Street is a great opportunity to create flexible public space. If newStreet south is maintained as a controlled vehicular access East Market Street can be

closed for temporary events.

b. Widen pavement on North side of East Market Street (over parking in WaverlyStation)


10/24

10

c. Arches provide space to service markets and events workshop and storage space.d. Improve existing space in front of Arches as square which links to new public

square outside Council offices and linking pedestrians with Waverly Station.

Work Group C


11/24

11

Work Group A

Issues and Solutions

1. Use of space. Look at rates incentives/entice SMEs/Artisans (good PR story)2. View from Jeffery Street must be protected. New building must fit area.3. Clarity on live music/night club question?4. Clarity from Council on what will happen in the space at their front door? (Arches ) will it

block the views from the Arches (whatever their use)

5. Steps from Jeffery Street to Market Street please!6. Think about access to station7. Ensure that the views as you come up St Marys Street are also preserved.8. Calton Hill visitors want to preserve these views.9. Compare Arches to Temple Bar has completely enlivened that area.10.Start building from Cranston Street or start of Arches? to discuss further that first

building is important? Or is it? debated.

11.Phased plan to introduce retail need an introduction strategy so as not to upset localbusinesses.

12.Traffic calm East Market Street by adding lanes? Shrink footway?


12/24

12

Work Session Four Site Wide and Overarching Issues and Ideal Next Steps

In the initial session of the workshop in addition to identifying issues relating to the proposed south

side development the group identified a number of issues which related to the whole site. These

issues were not the prime focus of the workshop but both sponsors had supported the view that if it

were felt appropriate by the participants that the workshop should provide an opportunity to

identify and briefly discuss these issues.

Site Wide and Overarching Issues identified in work session two:

1. The Macrae tenements in the Canongate.2. Diversity of Architecture plus implication for smaller plots for development. Holyrood North

had 17 architects.

3. Architectural Quality unlimited design competitions for all new buildings.4. Movement grid should be finer so office footprint should be 4 or 5 buildings plus more

routes from High Street into the site.5. Building Adaptability can office be converted to residential easily? Has this been allowed in

the building specification?

6. Office block monolithic should be sub divided.7. Keeping the historic land character of the Old Town.8. Overall loss of character in Old Town.9. Access through the whole site on foot or bicycle.10.Limiting motor traffic.11.Public Square! hate it.12.Reduce size of Public Square doesnt fit with character of area.13.Public Square is in the wrong place.14.More public space i.e. green spaces.15.Concern for loss of fine urban grain of the old town! Canongate.16.Need for serious increase in the amount of general and affordable family housing across the

whole site.

17.Building types avoid single use buildings like the office. Preferred type has non-residentialbelow flats. A.Murray residential building is a good example.

18.Public Square should be traffic restricted and mainly pedestrian/cycle circulation. Ditto thenew north/south street from the Pend to Calton Road.

19.Want to ensure that the final site enlivens the local community rather than eclipses it.20. Investment into local community/community businesses now?21.See Closes development layout on North part of site.22.Need to know whether todays session will actually impact/amend proposals.

The final session reviewed these headline issues to confirm whether or not they had been covered

during the workshop. Those that were considered not to have been dealt with were then briefly

discussed. The outcome of that discussion is reported below.

1. Traffic Restrictions/Pedestrians/Cyclistsa. Look at all of New Streetb. Traffic Management schemec. Is public square in the right place


13/24

13

2. Diversity of Architecturea. Retention of older buildings (Ark and Tenements)b. Respect character of Old Townc. Variety of design teamd. Smaller plots/design competitions more mixed use within plots (mixed use

buildings)

3. Building adaptabilitya. Life-span of buildingsb. Adaption of existing buildingsc. Adaptability brief to architects

4. North Part of Sitea. Opportunity for greater density vs. some public spaceb. Loss of urban grain closes etc. (important for both NTS sites ) also in south site

5. Affordable family housinga. Needed across the site

6. Green Spacea. Requirement for moreb. Existing green spaces in old town often inaccessible/privatec. Public green space

7. New Streeta. Blank offices dangerous poverty of New Street

8. Incremental development - achievable9. Demolitions

a. Concern that more demolitions will take place before developmentb. Encourage temporary use

10.Architecturea. A sense of place reflect character of areab. Not an anywhere developmentc. Bigger picture Royal Mile

11.Charactera. Permanent (residents) vs. Temporary (Visitors, hotels, students)

12.Public Transport links and enhancementsIdeal Next Steps

1. Feedback on how these comments were taken on board before application submission.2. Same process for northern site.3. Accessibility of comments/feedback form on the development.4. Advertising for future exhibitions local press.5. Transparency in land deal with CEC/legally binding.


14/24

14

Development Name

Although not formally part of the workshop objectives the exhibition had sought ideas on a name for

the development. The participants were invited to undertake a quick brainstorm on this at the

conclusion of the workshop. The outputs were as follows:

1. Not Caltongate.2. No Name.3. Refer to a Stuart Harris book which researches the historic names of areas of Edinburgh.4. Street naming conventions will create a name for the development.

On Saturday Morning the following comment was added:

1. Consult those who are knowledgeable about the historic names of areas in Edinburgh.


15/24

15

Appendix One

Participants and Observers.

Participants:

1. Karen Doran Local Councillor2. Sarah Cooke Royal Mile Co-ordinator CEC3. Rosemary Mann Edinburgh old Town Association4. Neil Simpson Old Town Development Trust (OTDT)5. Jim Johnson - OTDT6. Julie Logan - Old Town Community Council7. Andrew Martindale Historic Scotland8. John Fleming Cockburn Association (CA)9. Jon Grounsell CA10.Emelie Borg CA11.Anja Amsel Old Town Association12.Barbara Buchanan Scottish Parliament13.Alex Mann Spokes14.Rebecca Frost A+DS15.Carol Mann Old Town Community Council

(A number of the above participants were not present for the full workshop and it may be that one

or two who joined late may not have registered attendance).

Observers:

1. Nancy Jamieson CEC2. Ron Persaud Artisan3. Lukas Nakos Artisan4. Richard Slipper and Caroline Owen GVA5. David Hannah CDA6. Conor Magowan Weber Shandwick


16/24

16

Appendix Two


17/24

17


18/24

18


19/24

19


20/24

20


21/24

21


22/24

22


23/24

23


24/24

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	julie-logan
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Stakeholders workshop Report

Documents