CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

Roundabout or hotel?

(21 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by chdot
  • Latest reply from Charlethepar

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    "
    In 2009, City of Edinburgh Council approved Development Principles for Picardy Place which recognised the opportunity to fundamentally change Picardy Place and improve the important
    gateway to the city centre from a roundabout prioritising traffic movement to a high quality public place/development area. The current proposals are being developed in general accordance with these principles.

    A drop-in exhibition is being held on Friday 6 December 2013 between 2pm - 7:30pm at Caf6 Camino Hall, Parish Centre, 1 LiHIe King Street, Edinburgh, EHl 3JD.
    We hope you are able to attend

    "

    http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1312-GVA-consultn.pdf

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I'm fascinated to see how they're thinking of doing the hotel development, so will go along just to satisfy my curiosity.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. PS
    Member

    @k Do you mind taking photos of any plans? I've got to go to my works Xmas do on Friday %-) so can't attend.

    Presumably it would be some form of return to the old streetscape, so the roundabout would be a goner. Here's hoping anyway, a 60's throwback gyratory around a hotel would be awful.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. kaputnik
    Moderator

    First time I've noticed these original Basil Spence plans for the redevlopment of St James's Square.

    The really intersting bit is that they show the original plan for Leith Street - to be demolished, built over with concrete tower blocks and have a dual carriageway running below. Assume it connected to the planned "Bridges Relief Road".

    Also, here is the original corner of Little King Street. Photo taken from approximately where the Paolozzi statues are, looking up the hill where John Lewis now is. Also looking the other way towards the cathedral, where the Theatre Royal was, now where the cathedral cafe is.

    And the "missing" central triangular block of Picardy Place

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. chdot
    Admin

    Exhibition today!

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Thanks for reminder. Will head there later.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    Just been.

    Enter through cafe (opp John Lewis) turn left

    Seems hotel idea is basically instead of roadabout with same road layout....

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. wingpig
    Member

    "...with same road layout..."

    ...but (significant) extra pressures placed thereon?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. crowriver
    Member

    Yes, I went this afternoon with the kids in tow. A slight refinement of existing roundabout into a gyratory system. Totally dominated by motor vehicle traffic. Pedestrians badly catered for of course. Also no sign of any cycling provision. Think Bullring 1960s era Brum and you get the idea. Could not quite believe how outdated an idea of urban planning the proposals represent. Not satisfactory!

    I left comments pointing out the missed opportunity to create a plaza or similar public space along by the Cathedral side.

    Took a few pics: will post in a minute.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. crowriver
    Member

    Here's what I grabbed with my mobile. Forgot to get a shot of the 'signature' building (banana/boomerang shape) visualisation. Not sure what 'street enclosures' are: mid-air walkway bridges?



    Posted 10 years ago #
  12. Angus
    Member

    Just been. The proposals have good and bad points I think.

    Firstly, I think recreating a hotel building where the old triangular block used to be is a good idea, particularly if the block is mixed-use, with shops etc on ground level, hotel above, and reinstates the old street pattern (the 'street enclosure' thing mentioned by Crowriver).

    Unfortunately, in terms of public space, and for pedestrians and cyclists, the proposals are frankly pathetic.

    The main issue, I think, is that new block is severed from the rest of the St James Centre redevelopment by the road joining Leith St and Broughton St.

    This creates several serious problems:

    1. The 'high quality public space' shown between the Cathedral and the hotel block, will, in reality, be dominated cars; all the traffic currently going down Leith St will pass through there!
    2. It makes safe, easy pedestrian and cyclist conections athrough/across the whole area very difficult.

    Someone staffing the consultation (from GVA Grimley...) said that Sustrans had raised objections to this too, and would prefer a straighforward two-way connection between Leith St and Leith Walk.

    He also thought that the developer would also likely prefer a more direct, pedestrianised connection between the hotel and the rest of the St James area, and that the main party pushing for the currently proposed gyratory system is CEC traffic dept...

    I think given that the developer isn't actually pushing for inclusion of the Leith St/Broughton St road, might mean that the scheme could concievably be changed, if enough pressure is put on the council to prioritise the quality of public space/pedestrians/cyclists over ease of traffic movement.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  13. crowriver
    Member

    Interesting. Time for a letter of objection methinks, pointing out that the westernmost part of the gyratory should be scrapped and the area pedestrianised. Hell they could even move the hotel closer to the Cathedral and widen the pavements/build segregated cycle lanes to the north and south.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  14. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I've made a PDF of the main slides with the two options here;

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/76546639/Picardy%20Place.pdf

    The two options revolve around restoring a triangular segment in the rough alignment of the old Union Place tenement. One would be a "wedge" conforming to the site. They're calling that the "perimeter option". The second is for a "signature building" with a rough kidney bean plan. I prefer this option as it creates more open space, however I am also torn to liking the first as it recreates the outline of the tenement block that should never have been pulled down in the first place.

    Questions I posed in my response covered the complete lack of detail about how traffic might access the development, given it's penned in by busy roads on all sides. I asked about where cars were intended to park. I asked for more detail about if the space between the development and the Cathedral was to be public space or another road. I also wanted to know if the plans for "potential basement" development included some sort of grade separated pedestrian access under the road.
    I didn't even bother asking about cycling as there wasn't enough detail at this stage to see how it might fit in, given they've not even set on how the building might be located and how the roads might go around it.

    It would certainly be an excellent hotel site, however walking past the roundabout last night I was struck by how small it would be compared to the King James Thistle hotel. There isn't much space there once you add the roads in.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  15. chdot
    Admin

    " I am also torn to liking the first as it recreates the outline of the tenement block that should never have been pulled down in the first place."

    Yes, but, new building will be much taller.

    "I was struck by how small it would be compared to the King James Thistle hotel"

    Yes, which is why I was very surprised to find that the plan really is to replace the roundabout rather than to make some sensible use of the space there that is clogged with traffic flow (at some times of day).

    Actually I was expecting a mega-development with the roads underneath!

    Posted 10 years ago #
  16. crowriver
    Member

    I asked about where cars were intended to park.

    Great big car parks nearby at St James and across the road on Leith Street. Surely park there?

    I didn't even bother asking about cycling as there wasn't enough detail at this stage to see how it might fit in

    Neither did I, for similar reasons. Maybe I should have.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  17. neddie
    Member

    Sustrans has published a discussion paper on the future of Picardy Place and comments are welcome...

    http://www.sustrans.org.uk/news/sustrans-ideas-picardy-place-edinburgh

    Posted 9 years ago #
  18. fimm
    Member

    There's a stupid cycle lane to nowhere on them...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  19. Rabid Hamster
    Member

    SusTrans should use the StJames Quarter developer plans instead of using existing situation, or full integration of all elements may be a missed opportunity to do something decent and well consulted! ;o]

    Posted 9 years ago #
  20. Rabid Hamster
    Member

  21. Charlethepar
    Member

    Since tourist buses sit outside every other city centre hotel, regardless of parking restrictions, bus lanes, danger to others, etc, I wonder where they would block the road outside this proposed hotel.

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin