“A SMARTER SLOANE SQUARE” |
|
z FOR TRAFFIC?
OR FOR PEOPLE?
RBKC did a plan. Save Sloane Square Action group did a plan. Neither was ideal. This is our suggestion.
Why
Change the Square?
The Proposal
Transport
History
Public Opinion
Design Brief
Why should the Square be changed at all?
It's a traffic-dominated mess. The central island is totally isolated from surrounding buildings by traffic. All bordering pavements and buildings are affected by noise and pollution. The elongated roundabout system creates far longer journeys through the square than with any other conceivable layout. The plan of existing bus routes on the left shows this. There is a dire need for additional pedestrian space at the eastern end of the Square in front of the Tube Station, Royal Court Theatre, and Oriel Brasserie..There is a need to improve pedestrian access from the Tube Station to all parts of the Square, to Peter Jones, Kings Road and Sloane Avenue and ideally to Cadogan Hall and the new Saatchi Gallery as well. 78% of those favouring the Council’s plan gave their reason as wishing to improve the pedestrian realm.
We have looked at the Square and its history and believe that there is a simple solution which meets the expressed wishes of the majority of the interested parties, which dramatically improves the pedestrian realm, reduces traffic dominance, and makes the central island accessible.
The details
of the proposals are given below, which we have somewhat cheekily called the
“Smarter Sloane Square” Options. There are two options, each aims to provide the maximum improvement
with the minimum of disruption and cost.
The Smarter Sloane Square Options
The preferred option:
The Plan:
Essential features of the proposal:
The “positive” aspects of the scheme are:
The “negative” aspects of the scheme are:
Second option:
This is similar to the preferred option but the difference is that access to Holbein Place is kept open. The road is levelled with the pavement as on the North side.. Other than that, essential features are the same. The pedestrian area is smaller but the island is still directly linked to a spacious piazza in front of the Royal Court.
We believe that either of these schemes meets the expressed wish of the majority of people consulted in the 2006-7 Consultation to retain the essential character of the Square, and at the same time goes a considerable way towards meeting the understandable wishes of the Council to improve the urban environment in the Square for the benefit of residents and visitors alike, and to simplify traffic routes in the area.
Do email us your comments at rba.architects@yahoo.co.uk
Copyright Richard Bird Associates 2008. No part of this study may be reproduced without permission.
APPENDIX
Public and Private Transport
Bus routes are simplified and much reduced in length in contrast with the present layout. (e.g. from Sloane Street or King’s Road into Lower Sloane Street.) Road widths have been checked to ensure that the largest vehicles can negotiate the junctions.
People arriving at the Tube Station emerge onto a generous pedestrian area. Taxi ranks are easily accessible without crossing any roadway. Access to Kings Road involves only one crossing, at Lower Sloane Street. Access to Cadogan Hall and the Sloane Square Hotel is much improved in contrast to the present situation. Access to Peter Jones involves just two crossings, at Lower Sloane Street and Kings Road, with a possible crossing direct to the central island subject to traffic engineers approval.
Cycle racks can be provided around the new square. Motorcycle/scooter parking bays are provided in Holbein Place.
HISTORY AND PUBLIC OPINIONS
The 2006-7 Consultation asked people to vote on two options:
Option A (renovated gyratory)
The plan was effectively predetermined by the main requirements of the brief given to the designers by the Save Sloane Square group. i.e.
The “positive” aspects of the scheme are:
The “negative” aspects of the scheme are:
Option B (RBKC Crossroads plan)
The plan was determined by the wish of the Council to
The “positive” aspects of the scheme are:
The “negative” aspects of the scheme are:
Public Opinions: Analysis of the ICM Consultation Study
The 2006-7 Consultation was carried out by ICM who gave detailed analyses of the reasons given by people for preferring one option to the other. In view of the very useful assessment of public opinion obtained in that study, we decided to analyse their results.
The preference results were:
Favouring Option A (renovated gyratory) 67% (a clear majority)
Favouring Option B (RBKC plan) 26%
Let’s take a look at the 67% favouring Option A. The reasons given in order of priority were:
Reason Percentage giving reason Adjusted 1. Keep the Square 26% (18%) 2. Better traffic flow 20% (14%) 3. Nearer to the original 18% (13%) 4. Better design/more attractive 16% (12%) 5. More in keeping with the area 11% (8%) 6. Better for pedestrians 10% (7%) 7. Less disruption 10% (7%) 8. Traditional /historic/heritage 10% (7%) 9. Should not alter it 7% (5%) 10. Somewhere to relax 6% (4%) 11. More greenery 6% (4%) 12. X-roads creates more traffic 6% (4%) 13. Iconic landmark 6% (4%)
And the reasons given by those favouring Option B were
Reason Percentage giving reason Adjusted 1. Better for pedestrians 34% (10%) 2. More open space 25% (7%) 3. Central area used more 19% (5%) 4. Better traffic flow 19% (5%) 5. Somewhere to relax 18% (5%) 6. More attractive design 16% (4%) 7. Easier access/getting through the square 16% (4%) 8. Wider pavements 12% (3%)
Since the Option A voters represent more people than the Option B voters, the basic percentages above are slightly misleading. Adjusted figures in brackets have therefore been added in order to show the relative proportions of votes in terms of total actual votes.
It seems clear that within Option A voters there is a whole class of reasons which all say much the same thing:
· Keep the Square 26% (18%) · Nearer to the original 18% (13%) · More in keeping with the area 11% (8%) · Traditional /historic/heritage 10% (7%) · Should not alter it 7% (5%) · Iconic landmark 6% (4%)
Total 78% (55%)
The common factor in these reasons, representing the opinion of 78% of those voting for Option A, and 55% of the total of voters is that they want as far as possible to keep the essential character of the existing Square, which is seen as an iconic landmark with heritage value, in keeping with the area.
The Square does indeed have a special character which may have been the intention of the designers, or just a happy combination of features. It has a “Parisian” feel, the sort of place which could be found in the quieter backstreets of Paris, due to its smallish scale, the formal planting of plane trees, the decorative fountain with statuary, and the subtle camber of the paved surface, All these add up to make it a striking and unique icon in the London scene. Given this, it is understandable that 78% of those voting gave its retention, more or less intact, as the main reason for choosing Option A.
From this it is clear that any proposal to totally erase the existing Square design is likely to meet fierce opposition from local residents and many other parties London- and nation-wide. These strong and firmly entrenched views would have to be carefully considered by the Council when looking at any possible improvements to the Square.
Now looking at the Option B votes, the strongest reasons given were
1. Better for pedestrians 34% (10%) 2. More open space 25% (7%) 3. Central area used more 19% (5%)
Total 78% (22%)
The common factor here is a desire for improvements in the pedestrian realm. These views expressed by 78% of those favouring Option B will need to be considered in any future proposals.
SUGGESTED DESIGN BRIEF for any future development of the Square
a. Improve pedestrian access from the Tube Station to all parts of the Square, to Peter Jones, Kings Road and Sloane Avenue and to Cadogan Hall. b. Enlarge the area of pedestrian space, in particular on the eastern frontage (Royal Court and Tube Station) and if possible on the western frontage (front of Peter Jones), and other pavements where possible.
Copyright Richard Bird Associates 2008. No part of this study may be reproduced without permission. Renovated Gyratory plan by Atkins RBKC Plan by Stanton Williams
|