YoCo Co-Owned Mixed-Use Neighbourhood Design Workshop #2 – Notes

The second workshop to produce a preliminary vision for YoCo’s co-owned, mixed-use neighbourhood on York Central took place on Saturday 13th November. We’re looking at the sites adjacent to the Foundry office and workshop buildings – heading west (right in the image below) from the St.Peter’s Quarter development.

A arial view of the York Central site.

We started by each talking about somewhere we’d like to live/work/learn/play – somewhere we thought could usefully influence York central. These varied wildly – from the Sweet Water Foundation in Chicago to New Orleans to Amsterdam. We all responded with comments and observations – trying to highlight the issues they raised – and you can see all the comments here.

Post its from the workshop

Despite the variety of places, there were common themes:-

·       Public space and how the boundary between public and private is negotiated

·       Complexity and surprise – the joy of exploring a place on foot

·       Co-housing principles and how they allow more efficient use of resources by some amenities being shared

·       How places can be unfinished or messy but still be wonderful

The next step was to look at very early sketches from two local architectural practices and draw from them key themes.

First was Carve Architecture – partner Tim Hatton had produced a sketch layout for the site which was presented by Katarzyna Bus and Jordan Fish.

Design ideas from Carve Architecture

Key elements of this included:-

·       The use of near-continuous blocks of accommodation to enclose and shelter public green space

·       Using the route through the site as a key movement route but also as a civic space by creating a public square, and by focusing commercial uses here

·       Raising the height along the southern boundary to create privacy for the space behind

·       Informal routes through for walking/cycling, breaking the buildings to create “porousity”

·       Mixed uses with commercial activity which embraces the “experience economy” – making the process of being there and exploring pleasant and engaging (and leaving the question of who is it aimed at – just locals or wider?).

·       Addressing the frontage onto Leeman Road and the new link road, and providing limited, condensed parking adjacent to the predominantly commercial area.

·       Retaining the existing buildings for community use.

Next was Phil Bixby from Constructive Individuals (also half of the My Future York team and hence co-facilitator of the My York Central public engagement). Phil brought two illustrations. The first showed what he called the building blocks for the neighbourhood – a four/five storey building which tapered in section, each storey potentially accommodating any use but the larger footprint at ground level particularly suiting commercial/cultural public-facing uses (shops, cafes, etc), the first floor office/workshop uses, and the upper floors residential. The tapering gave external terracing which could be for public access – effectively raising the “ground floor” or for private balconies.

Illustrations of design ideas by Phil Bixby indicating the possible building blocks of a mixed use neigbhourhoods

His second illustration was a view of the site, key elements of which were:-

·       Early activity around the Foundry buildings:-

o   “Spark 2”using shipping containers to accommodate business start-ups, which would then aim to move into permanent spaces in the neighbourhood as they established and grew and the buildings were created, also potentially using and adapting the Foundry workshop

o   A centre for learning – involving schools, the universities, Explore and with a focus on food but including a wide range of activities

o   A civic square next to these activities to give the development a public heart.

·       Linking the “building blocks” to create flexible linear blocks which enclose public/private space

·       Again using the movement route through the site for buses and limited car traffic, creating a mixed-use street

·       Creation of new public spaces and routes in front of and behind The Gatehouse

·       Removing parking entirely from the scheme (other than for specific mobility needs) to a multi-storey car park adjacent to the railway bridge – serving the entire York Central development and shielding it from railway noise.

An indication of streets, green spaces and commuity uses by Phil Bixby

 We then discussed the main issues which came out of these proposals and earlier conversations:-

Negotiating Between Public and Private (or collective and individual/personal – we felt the language is important)

What are the design tools we can use to help avoid conflict between spaces where people expect privacy and areas which are open to all (or to some)?

·       Layering – using different storeys for different things to separate public activity from private space.

·       Fronts and backs of buildings being different – fronts face streets and offer more privacy, backs are more open and connect inside/outside

Can we group activities in creative ways so noise is less problematic – for example workshop uses and children’s play?

Are there other creative ways of making noise less intrusive (we talked about intergenerational living and the joys of children’s laughter, but this isn’t always wanted and children can be quite sweary at times)?

·       Triple glazing and buildings which are robust against external noise

·       Soundscaping – actively thinking about sounds we do want to mask those we don’t

·       Use of trees and landscaping / changes in level to provide separation

The Design and use of Public Space

Public space should be designed with use in mind – not simply “what’s left over” when buildings have been arranged on the site. Even small areas of wasted space add up and could otherwise be valuable.

Derwenthorpe was discussed – why were the public gardens so underused? Was it about design or “ownership” – did people feel they just didn’t know what they were for as they weren’t involved in shaping them?

How does “ownership” of space affect use/care etc. Allotments are a good example – there is a degree of “ownership” (but not absolute) which encourages people to make full use, but collaborative acts still happen (shared composting etc). They’re different to shared food growing.

Are there optimum sizes for outdoor spaces in the same way that there are useful “average sized rooms” in homes which allow for a variety of uses? Can outdoor space be designed so different age groups can use it – kids playing and older people socialising?

Can the uses which are put next to public space encourage use/care? For example a café might extend out into open space with its own tables, but beyond that might be seating which is entirely public, with the two working well together.

…and Public Space on Rooftops

There was agreement that as a principle rooftops should be shared space anywhere which wasn’t being used for solar collectors. Public access gives the best space (the “penthouse”) to everyone – although moderation of access by time-restricting it or by charging nominal sums was discussed (and the complexities acknowledged).

Overlooking was seen as a potential problem – if anyone could look down from the rooftop then what value did private balcony space have? We talked about fronts and backs – could design allow views from fronts but not from backs, to reduce this issue?

The Economic Model

We talked about the economic framework within which the neighbourhood would be built and how this would encourage different activities:-

·       The “Netto Test” – how does retail provide for a mixed community – how do affordable chain stores work with collective food-buying?

·       Does the retail actually need specific steering, or does it respond to the local market, which itself is shaped by the housing economic model (so “forever affordable” housing shapes its local retail? Or does wider market area mean there will always be a wider influence on what thrives?

·       How can the neighbourhood encourage intergenerational activity which works well in both directions? Can it build in co-mentorship which allows skills to be passed down from older people but also younger people – the digital natives – to pass their abilities upwards?

Next Steps

·       Link to this blog circulated to all participants along with invitation to be involved with next steps via a working group

·       Architects to collaborate on a next version of the outline design which incorporates thinking about the issues above and goes slightly further into detail

·       Head towards a Design Workshop #3 at which point outputs would be sufficient information for Leeds Community Homes to start building a cost model of the neighbourhood.