Ben Hamilton-Baillie Espai Compartit

8/18/2019 Ben Hamilton-Baillie Espai Compartit

1/21

SHARED SPACE: RECONCILING PEOPLE, PLACES AND TRAFFIC

161BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 34 NO 2

Shared Space: Reconciling People,Places and Traffic

BEN HAMILTON-BAILLIE

Under the label of ‘shared space’, a radically different approach to street design,traffic flow and road safety is rapidly emerging. Combining a greater understandingof behavioural psychology with a changing perception of risk and safety, sharedspace offers a set of principles that suggest new radically different possibilities

for successfully combining movement with the other civic function of streets andurban spaces. Shared space has evolved most rapidly in the Denmark, Germany,Sweden and the northern part of Holland. However there is a growing rangeof examples in France, Spain, the UK and other European countries. The paperconsiders the potential for shared space principles to prompt a new approach to thedesign, management and maintenance of streets and public spaces in cities, townsand villages. Drawing on well-established examples from a variety of countries, theauthor examines the outcomes of schemes that deliberately integrate traffic into thesocial and cultural protocols that govern the rest of public life. The findings raiseimportant implications for governments and local authorities, for professionals, forcommunities and for citizens.

Imagine if you had never seen a skating rink.Someone is explaining the concept to you forthe first time, hoping for your support insetting one up. He explains that the floorconsists of smooth, slippery ice, surrounded by a steel handrail. Customers pay to puton boots with steel blades on the soles, andthen glide at will around the limited space.There are no rules. What would be yourreaction? You would almost certainly haveconcerns about safety and the risk to skaters.How would you prevent skaters collidingwith each other? How would you separate beginners from experts? How would youcontrol and regulate so many unpredictablemovements and prevent chaos? It wouldsound a crazy and irresponsible idea!

Yet skating rinks work with few rulesand no overseeing regulator. Informal socialprotocols serve to keep skaters movingin a roughly consistent direction, with

beginners on the outside and faster skaterson the inside. Part of the pleasure derivesfrom a surprising and enjoyable collectiveconsensus, and the ability of all participantsto communicate, anticipate and react in waysthat bring to mind the behaviour of shoals offish or flocks of birds. Regulating the activitythrough precise rules and controls woulddestroy the dynamic interactions essential tothe process. Humans are obviously complexand adaptable creatures!

The analogy serves to illustrate the contrast between assumptions and predictions aboutthe outcomes of complex human interactionsand the findings from empirical observationsof real life. This has particular relevance forthe shaping of public space, given that ahigh proportion of our streets and publicspaces, the public realm, is configured onassumptions about traffic behaviour and roadsafety. This paper outlines a fresh approach to


2/21

PEOPLE PLUS TECHNOLOGY: NEW APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY

162 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 34 NO 2

the century old problem of how to reconcilethe movement of people and traffic, drawingon case studies, observations and practicalexperience of numerous street design projectsemerging across Europe. The approach,increasingly referred to as ‘shared space’, builds on new findings from the fields of behavioural and environmental psychology,and in particular the development of riskcompensation theory (Adams, 1995). Byexploring the background to conventionalresponses to traffic in towns and theemergence of a contrasting set of principles

that underpin a number of recent urbanprojects, the paper suggests that significantopportunities may be emerging that allowtraffic to be integrated into the complexinformal social protocols of public spacewithout loss of safety, mobility or accessibility.Shared space may represent an importantstep towards widening the opportunities forcommunities and individuals to shape andinfluence the built environment in ways thatencourage diversity, distinctiveness, urbanquality and civility.

Background and Methodology

The author is an architect and urban designer,specializing in the design and developmentof mixed-use streets and public spaces.The lack of a formal theoretical frameworkor a coherent body of research examiningalternative philosophies of traffic engineeringlimits the extent to which firm conclusionscan be drawn. Nevertheless, extensiveobservations in practice by the author andmany other practitioners, combined withcase studies and monitoring reports frominnovative schemes, suggest that a numberof long-standing assumptions about the roleof governments in regulating and controllingtraffic movement might be beneficiallyreconsidered in the light of such experience.Many of the case studies are drawn from thework of the Commission for Architectureand the Built Environment (CABE), whosework is increasingly focused on improving

the quality of streets and spaces in the UK.The author has contributed to the researchfor a number of these case studies (CABE,2007a), and draws on other findings frommainland Europe, especially Sweden andThe Netherlands.

Both the methodology and central hypo-thesis underpinning the paper can besummed up by the conclusions of Allan B. Jacobs, Professor of Urban Design at theUniversity of California, Berkeley and formerdirector of the City Planning Commission ofSan Francisco. The author of many classic

works on cities such as Looking at Cities (1985),Great Streets (1995), and The Boulevard Book (2001), the Project for Public Spaces (PPS)describes Jacobs as ‘the ultimate student ofthe street’ (PPS, 2007). His key perspectives,summarized on the PPS ‘Placemakers’ profile,include:

‘Utilizing the Power of Observation. Directobservation forms the foundation of mostof Jacob’s work and accomplishments. Heexplains how most modern street planning

is based on traffic assumptions, rather thanreal research and observation of existingplaces. He calls for planners and designersto study what does and does not work inexisting streets, and to use these observationsto better design great public streets – to “copythe good examples”.

Fostering Interaction between Pedestriansand Cars. Contrary to traditional planningassumptions, Jacobs suggests that the seg-regation of cars and pedestrians decreasessafety and community vitality. Based on fieldresearch and observation, he demonstratesthat intersections and streets that allowevery type of movement and interaction between pedestrians and drivers work best,serving as attractive, welcoming, and excitingplaces that help build the local community.According to Jacobs’ findings, when carsare more fully aware of and integrated intothe pedestrian realm, both pedestrians anddrivers are safer.’ (PPS, 2007)


3/21



The Context for Shared Space

Interest in the potential for integration oftraffic into the public realm comes at a timeof growing local, national and internationalconcern about the declining state of streetsand streetscapes. The European Union hasrecognized the significance of the issue foreconomic and social cohesion and equalitythrough its InterReg programme, whichis funding research into shared space(Fryslân Province, 2005). In the USA, theCongress for New Urbanism (CNU) and the

National ‘Main Streets’ conference have bothfocused attention on the critical relationship between urban regeneration and streetquality (CNU, 2007). In the United Kingdomthe government’s advisor on design, theCommission for Architecture and the BuiltEnvironment (CABE Space) has prioritizedstreets and streetscape issues as a key areafor research, development and training(CABE, 2007b). The publication of Save ourStreets (English Heritage, 2005) revealeda surprisingly high level of widespread

popular dissatisfaction with the state ofurban, suburban and rural streetscapes inthe UK, concerns echoed by research andcampaigns by the Campaign to Protect RuralEngland (CPRE, 2007), the English Historic

Towns Forum (EHTF, 2007), and the CivicTrust (Civic Trust, 2007).Concern about declining streetscapes tends

to revolve around a number of interconnectedthemes. These range from issues relating tothe environment (emissions, pollution etc),those affecting economic activity (pedestrianflows, traffic congestion, rental values),to those related to health (such as obesity,mental health, public safety etc) and thoseconcerned with the quality of civic life andcommunity cohesion (inclusiveness, anti-social behaviour, civility etc.). It is worth

touching on some of these in more detail.Firstly there is the issue of safety. Although

there is growing awareness of the complexitiesof safety and the difficulties in adequatelydefining the term, most governments assumeat least partial responsibility for reducing thenumbers of deaths and injuries. Althoughoverall numbers of road casualties are falling,and the UK compares well to other Europeancountries in terms of road deaths and injuries,such reductions are not evenly distributed.Pedestrian casualties remain high, especially

amongst children (IPPR, 2002). Children inpoorer neighbourhoods fare particularly badly. Road safety, and the desire to reducecasualties, remains an important motive forimproving street design.

Figure 1. Regulation andsegregation in the public realmand the resulting clutter – the junction of Kew Road andChiswick High Road. (Photo: English Heritage)


4/21



Linked to perceptions of safety are concernsabout the decline in walking and bicyclingas modes of transport, and of growing cardependency. The health implications parallelthe wider concern of the urgent need toreduce CO2 emissions from transport. TheUK has the lowest levels of pedestrian and bicycle share in Europe; twice as many tripsare made by car as by walking and cyclingcombined. By contrast, in The Netherlandsactive modes account for almost exactlythe same proportion of trips as those bycar. Between 1992 and 2004, the number of

walking trips and journeys by bicycle perperson per year declined in Great Britain byone-fifth. This reduction has been especiallynotable amongst children, and recent researchlinks reductions in long-term health outlooksand obesity with the decline in active travel(Cavill, 2007).

Economic decline is also increasingly linkedto the quality and accessibility of streetscapes.Recent research by CABE (2007c) begins toquantify a long-recognized link betweeneconomic regeneration and the quality of

streetscapes. The standardization associatedwith regulated traffic measures diminishesthe particular qualities and identity of specificplaces and settlements. It is exactly thesequalities of distinctiveness that appear toattract the attention of commercial investors(Florida, 2005).

The drive towards ‘inclusive’ design(measures that facilitate participation by thewidest cross-section of people) also spursefforts to improve the configuration of ourstreets and public spaces. Perceptions ofdanger and the inclusion of physical barrierssuch as high kerbs, bollards and pedestrianguardrails are increasingly linked to diffi-culties encountered by those who do notdrive; in particular children, older people andthose with mental or physical disabilities.

Finally, the need to improve the quality ofstreets in their ability to cope with movementpresents a challenge to engineers and urbandesigners. Congestion and unreliable journeytimes in towns and cities remain sources of

concern to almost all governments andhighway authorities, and the introductionof traffic controls and other highwaymeasures do not appear to have succeededin improving journey times or reducingcongestion. Average speeds for cars acrossLondon remain between 11 and 13 mph,roughly the same as at the beginning of thetwentieth century (DETR, 1998).

Most of the problems highlighted by con-temporary studies relate to both the impactof motor vehicles on the built environment,and the measures introduced to try and

cope with the presence of traffic. Theaccumulation of ‘street clutter’ – the signs,markings, signals, bollards and barriers asso-ciated with traffic engineering – is the mostevident visual manifestation of measuresaimed to regulate and control movement, andremains a source of growing concern aboutthe decline in visual and spatial quality in thepublic realm. But concern about clutter masksa deeper concern about the effect that suchmeasures have on the psychology of roadusers, and on the interrelationships between

people as drivers, cyclists, pedestrians orother participants in our streets and publicspaces. An increasing understanding of behavioural and environmental psychology,and the degree to which our environment in-fluences our actions and decisions is prompt-ing a re-evaluation of some of the key assump-tions that underpin conventional approachesto safety and traffic engineering (Adams,1988). Understanding this change requiresa brief review of the principles that havegoverned traffic engineering since the 1920s.

The Segregation Principle

Attempts to rationalize traffic movement incities pre-date the arrival of the automobile.The first signal-controlled pedestrian crossingwas installed in London in 1868 at theintersection of George and Bridge Streets nearthe Houses of Parliament (it exploded andkilled a policeman before being dismantled in1872). In 1905 Eugène Hénard published his


5/21



proposals for organizing circulation aroundthe Place de l’Opera in Paris, introducing theconcept of the roundabout with underpassesand grade separation between pedestriansand (still) horse-drawn traffic.

In 1933, the Charter of Athens recom-mended strict separation of traffic from civicspaces, a theme taken up with enthusiasm

by Le Corbusier and other members of theCongrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne(CIAM).1 The principle of segregation wasmost clearly and forcefully supported by thecommittee chaired by Colin Buchanan, whoseseminal report Traffic in Towns was publishedin 1963. Buchanan argued that the two

principal purposes associated with streetsand public spaces, those of movement andof social interaction, would need to be strictlysegregated as traffic volumes increased. TheMinistry of Transport adopted the principlewith enthusiasm. ‘Traffic segregation should be the keynote of modern road design’ wasa concluding recommendation of its publica-

tion Roads in Urban Areas of 1966. Theprinciple led to the familiar urban landscapeof underpasses and overbridges, barriers andsignals that are such a familiar component ofmodern towns.

Segregation of traffic from other aspectsof urban life matched the zeitgeist of 1960s

Figure 2. Hénard’s sketch forrationalizing and segregatingtraffic. (Source: Hénard 1905)

Figure 3. Segregation oftraffic from civic spaces.(Source: Buchanan et al.,1963)


6/21



planning. The separation of land uses fromeach other and the clear zoning of land forspecific purposes (employment, residential,commercial, industrial) seemed a rationalresponse to the potential friction of mixeduse. Even children’s play areas should bedefined and planned for. The notion of thestate as controller and regulator of activities,taking responsibility for order and safety,chimed with the social welfare aspirationsof both left and right spectrums of poli-tical thought. Potential conflict and fric-tion between different activities could be

designed-out through planning and regula-tion. It is a theme that continues to underpinthe guidance offered by the Departmentfor Transport through traffic manuals, andis evident in the interpretation of safety ineducation and in design checks such as thesafety audit process.

A fascinating parallel to the developmentof segregation in street design has beenresearched and described by Joe Moran (2006)in his paper ‘Crossing the road in Britain,1931–1976’. The political and cultural history

of this mundane, everyday activity offers usan example of the assumptions, values and beliefs behind the attempts by governmentsto formalize and regulate the relationship between drivers and pedestrians. In contrastto North America and Western Europe,where red lights for pedestrians are legally binding and there are fines for jay walking,the relatively informal law and etiquette ofcrossing roads in the UK is, as Moran argues‘a product of the complex history and fraughtpolitics of motor transport, road safety andurban design’ (Ibid., p. 478). The developmentof formal crossings, with their traditionof zoological names from ‘zebras’ though‘puffins’, ‘pandas’, to ‘pelicans’ and ‘toucans’2 have become such an established part of theurban environment that they are now largelytaken for granted. Yet there remains littleresearch into their effect on pedestrian safety,accessibility and behaviour, due perhaps tocontinued widespread popular faith in theireffectiveness (Ibid., p. 496).

Experiments in Integration:The Development of Shared Space

The concept of shared space, that of allstreet users moving and interacting in theiruse of space on the basis of informal socialprotocols and negotiation, is nothing new. Itcan be argued that such ad hoc arrangementswere the status quo ante of the introductionof segregation associated with conventionalhighway design. Raised pavements and kerbshave existed for many years, but principallyas a means to keep pedestrians clear of the

mud and dirt of the ‘carriageway’, ratherthan as a method of regulating the use ofspace. Visit any Mediterranean hill townor market square, and one can observe theinformal sharing of street space by vehiclesand other users, and such arrangementsremain commonplace throughout the world.In the UK, there are numerous villagesquares, mews courts, car parks, camp sites,rural lanes and other spaces where sharedspace conditions prevail. But until recently,we have had no terminology or analytical

categories to describe such arrangements,and little research data to understand howthe necessary informal protocols developand operate.

The conscious application of shared spaceand the deliberate integration of traffic intosocial space date back to experiments carriedout by pioneers such as Joost Vàhl and othersin The Netherlands in the late 1960s and early1970s (Van den Boonen, 2002). Searching forways to reduce the impact of traffic on thequalities of social space and, in particular, toprevent the decline in freedom of movementavailable to children, Vàhl and his colleagues began to strip out standardized road signing,marking, kerbs and barriers. Playful, creativeand quixotic, Vàhl created a new vocabularyof street design rich in local references,surprise and intrigue. The popularity ofthe resulting rich urban landscapes causedsignificant interest across other mainlandEuropean countries, especially Denmarkand France, giving rise to wide variations


7/21



in the concept (Vahl and Giskes, 1990). In1976 the Dutch government recognizedand formalized the approach, defining theconcept of the woonerf (roughly translated as‘yard for living’) as a means to design low

speed residential roads.Ironically, the formal definition and regu-

lation of the woonerf signalled its demise. Assoon as there were standards established forthe woonerf , with guidance on the numberand spacing of ‘traffic calming devices’,and a formal sign to identify such spaces,enthusiasm for the concept began to fade. Atthe core of Vahl’s concepts was a shift awayfrom the regulatory world of governmentdefinitions towards the unstated rules of behaviour which govern everyday social be-haviour. As soon as the woonerf was merely just another category in the standard roadhierarchy, its use and popularity beganto fade. Joost Vahl went on to explore hisunofficial principles for street planning anddesign in the small town of Culemborg,south of Utrecht, but the woonerf did notdevelop further in The Netherlands. Interestand enthusiasm in other countries followeda similar trajectory. In the late 1990s, UKgovernment belatedly experimented with a

series of pilot projects and the publication ofguidance on ‘Home Zones’ (IHIE, 2002).

Hans Monderman’s Experimentsin Friesland

Just as interest in the woonerf began to fadein The Netherlands, the rural provinces inthe north of the country began to adapt theconcept of integration and the use of socialprotocols for the streets and public spaces ofsmall towns and villages. Hans Monderman,a traffic engineer from Friesland, was appoint-ed Head of Road Safety for the region in1978 following growing national concernabout rising child pedestrian casualties.Unconvinced by the conventional vocabularyof measures such as traffic calming and otherartificial interventions in the road environ-ment, Monderman began to experiment withsimple design and landscaping measuresthat emphasized the distinctive historyand context of each settlement, deliberatelyremoving or downgrading highway measuressuch as road markings, signs, chicanes androad humps. The village of Oudehaske wasthe first experiment with ‘making a villagemore like a village’ (Engwicht, 2006), and

Figure 4. Integrated streets– early woonerf , Rijswijk, TheNetherlands.


8/21



to his own astonishment, Mondermanrecorded reductions in traffic speeds of over40 per cent (conventional traffic calming wasachieving reductions closer to 10 per cent).Further successful village schemes followed,recording dramatic reductions in speeds andthe severity of accidents.3 In 1992 the villageof Makkinga became the first small town toremove every standard road sign, signal and

road marking. In their place, the new streetdesigns paid close attention to the particularlandmarks and preferred pedestrian routes(‘desire lines’4) of the community, emphasiz-ing links between school, shop, church andvillage green, and even reflecting the canopy

of a well-loved ancient copper beech tree.The lack of priority signs and markings at junctions seemed to make no difference tothe safe movement of traffic, cyclists andpedestrians.

Monderman’s pioneering schemes gaveincreasing confidence to the idea that roadsigns and markings, signals and barrierswere not essential requirements for safe

and efficient traffic movement. Indeed thereductions in speeds and concurrent declinein the severity of accidents seemed to pointto a closer relationship between safe trafficmovement and the distinctive spatial qualityof streets and spaces. Subsequent schemes

Figure 6. Wolvega, Friesland.Remodelled intersection ofHigh Street and main road.

Figure 5. Makkinga, Friesland.All traffic signs, signals andmarkings removed. (Photo:Andrew Burmann)


9/21



by Monderman and his colleagues beganto address more complex intersections in busier towns. The market town of Wolvega inFriesland is based around a crossroads wherea former national ‘A’ road bisects the mainshopping street. In 1997 traffic signals wereremoved, and the junction was remodelledas an informal town square with no formalcrossings, priority markings or controls. Intheir place, a striking piece of public artserving as a lighting support as well as apsychological bridge reconnects the two sidesof the high street.

In 1998 a five-way intersection in the nearbytown of Oosterwolde was redesigned. All theformer standardized priority markings andhighway kerbs were removed, to be replaced by a simple paved square on a slightly raisedplatform, recalling its history as the focalpoint at the head of an ancient canal system.Cars, bicycles, trucks, pedestrians, wheel-chair users negotiate their way across thespace employing an intricate and unspokenset of protocols reminiscent of the ice-skating

rink. It is not unusual to see conversationstaking place in the middle of the intersectionas lorries and cars weave through theapparent chaos of the unregulated space.Yet in its nine years of operation, speedsand serious accidents have reduced, trafficflows remain unaffected despite significantincreases in numbers of vehicles, and thespace has been transformed into a livelyfocal point with rejuvenated cafés and shopsaround its perimeter.

The few professionals and journalists fromoutside the region who noticed these smaller

schemes during the 1990s tended to assumethat such informal traffic arrangements couldonly function in small, homogeneous villagesand market towns. Many also assumed thatforeigners, not familiar with local protocols,might not respond as locals do. But morerecent schemes have begun to indicate thatshared space principles, the integration oftraffic into the social and cultural fabric ofthe built environment, might be suitable for busier town centre intersections and high

Figure 7. De Brink, Oosterwolde, The Netherlands.


10/21



streets. In 2002 the main shopping street inthe suburban town of Haren, near Groningen,

was redesigned along shared space principles.The 800 metre-long Rijksstraatweg carries between 8,500 and 12,000 vehicles per daythrough the main shopping and civic area.The former centre-line road markings, trafficsignals, separate bicycle lanes and high kerbswere all removed. In their place, a simple 6metre-wide carriageway links two majorcivic spaces where the former carriageway becomes an integral part of the surroundingpublic spaces. The position of trees blurs thedistinction between road and public realm,and simple drainage details and low kerbssuggest subtle demarcations. Despite trafficspeeds falling by around 5 km/h, the local buscompany reports more reliable journey times.Pedestrians criss-cross the street amongstthe passing traffic as the social life of theadjacent cafés and shops merges seamlesslywith the street.

The late Hans Monderman’s last schemein the city of Drachten, just south of Leeu-warden in Friesland, suggests that shared

space might offer opportunities to rethink thespace set aside for major traffic intersections.

For many years a busy junction on the edgeof the town centre, close to the regional busstation and the forecourt for the local theatre,was configured as a standard traffic-signalcontrolled intersection, with formal pedestriancrossings, separate left-turning, bus and bicycle lanes and the usual assortment ofsigns and road markings. The resulting space,known as the Laweiplein, was unattractiveto pedestrians and bicyclists, and tendedto cause long traffic delays and congestion.The accident history was poor, especiallyfor bicyclists. In 2002, after many years’discussion of alternative designs, the junctionwas remodelled. The resulting arrangementhas been carefully monitored by the localauthority (Smallingerland Municipality, 2007).The improvements in capacity of the busy junction, the reductions in delays and inserious accidents, and the remarkable changesin the interaction between all road users inwhat has now become a lively public spacewould suggest that shared space principles

Figure 8. Rijksstraatweg, Haren, near Gronigen, The Netherlands.


11/21



may be of value in rethinking some of our busier streetscapes.The volume of traffic at around 22,000

vehicles a day meant that a small roundaboutwas essential to organize the flows. Howeverat the Laweiplein the roundabout is not analien piece of traffic engineering, but formsan integral part of the overall design for thespace. The emphasis is firmly placed on thecreation of a coherent public square. Verticalwater jets surround the junction, animatingthe space and attracting human activity. Signsand markings are reduced to their absolute

minimum, and the widths of carriagewaysnever exceed 6 metres. With a consistentcolour palette for the asphalt and paving,subtle kerb designs and careful lightingthat places emphasis on the overall space,the solution has sometimes been describedas a ‘squareabout’. Pedestrians and cyclistscross at simple ‘courtesy crossings’ close tothe narrow entrances to the roundabout,negotiating movement with the slow-movingtraffic through unstated protocols. It is veryrare to see a pedestrian or cyclist have to

pause for long at the kerb, and yet even atthe busiest times the complex movements donot appear to disrupt traffic flows. Averageannual injury rates at the intersection havefallen from 8.3 to 1 in the three years since

reconstruction (Smallingerland Municipality,2007, p. 26).The Laweiplein example challenges many

long-standing assumptions concerning theability of people, whether drivers, bicyclistsor pedestrians, to resolve potential conflictthrough informal protocols and humaninteraction prompted by clues from the builtenvironment. Freed from the conventionalregulatory framework of traffic-signals andrights-of-way, all the various participantsin the constantly moving dynamic of thespace appear to adopt a remarkable range of

anticipatory and communication skills. Thesmooth flow of traffic and its interaction withcyclists and pedestrians prompts comparisonwith the ice-skating rink. It is a dynamic thatappears difficult to predict or model, andindeed all the formal capacity engineeringmodels5 for the Laweiplein proved wildlyinaccurate. No evidence could be foundfrom video analysis and observations, orfrom questionnaires, that non-local driverswere unable to respond to the spatial clues.There are, to date, few indications that the

civility, patience and courtesy engendered by the new arrangements diminish withtime. The number of visits to the junction by professionals and journalists from aroundthe world suggest that the outcomes of

Figure 9. Laweipleinintersection, Drachten – before.


12/21



this counter-intuitive scheme may haveprofound implications for wider urban trafficengineering and the design of public spaceacross other parts of the world.6

Shared Space Projects Elsewherein Mainland Europe

Innovation in the design of streets andintersections along shared space principlesis not confined to Northern Holland. Thereare examples to be found in most Europeancountries. Bilbao, Barcelona, Madrid and SanSebastian in Spain have seen examples of

streets designed to influence driver behaviourthrough reference to their local context. InGermany, the small town of Kevalear nearthe Dutch border has remodelled its towncentre to allow traffic to move through anopen square with few concessions to high-way engineering. Further north, the townof Bohmte, near Osnabruck, is in the pro-cess of re-modelling its high street, theBremerstrasse, along shared space principles.In France, the Villes plus sures (Safer Towns)programme applied similar integrated prin-ciples to the redesign of scores of small townsand villages. Denmark and Sweden have

Figure 11. Laweiplein,Drachten. Traffic as integralpart of a public square – after.

Figure 10. Laweipleinintersection concept plan.


13/21



developed the practice further than mostcountries, and shared space is now a widelyaccepted urban design principle in much ofScandinavia. Two examples are particularlynoteworthy.

In the Copenhagen suburb of Lyngby, themain shopping street was remodelled in 2003along designs prepared by Bjarne Winterbergof the engineering firm Ramboll Nyvig. Thestreet, like so many other suburban highstreets, combines a variety of shops andcafés with a fairly high volume of bus, carand bicycle traffic (around 14,000 vehicles

per day). Careful selection of materials andprecisely controlled dimensions succeed increating a distinctive space with low-speedcontinuous flows of traffic interacting with busy cross-flows of pedestrians. Particularcare has been taken to detail paving, streetfurniture and materials to provide a clearand consistent design language for thewhole street and to provide tactile clues and

guidance for people with physical or visualdisabilities. Subtle changes in paving detailsalert drivers to the most likely places wherepedestrians cross (the desire lines), and theseare almost always diagonal. Pedestrians,as Professor John Adams observes, are theworld’s greatest ‘Pythagorians’ – alwayspreferring the hypotenuse! (Adams, 2007,p. 1).

In the Swedish university town of Norr-köping, south-west of Stockholm, a majorintersection near the town centre known asSkvallertorget (Gossip Square) provides a

striking demonstration of the opportunitiespresented by shared space design principles.Formerly a traffic-signal controlled inter-section in a bleak and under-valued urbansetting, the space was remodelled in 2004in response to the relocation of a universityfaculty close to the square. To help reconnectthe space with the city centre and to copewith the increasing volume of student cyclists

Figure 12. Gran Via, Bilbao.


14/21



and pedestrians, the whole intersection has been treated as a single, coherent plaza whereall suggestion of priorities or linear emphasishas been removed. The signals are gone. Intheir place, a distinctive paving patternreinforces the spatial qualities; lightingcolumns are placed, unprotected by kerbs,wherever needed. A clear boundary aroundthe square of contrasting material helpsdefine the space and offers some tactile andvisual guidance.

The intersection has been monitored by the Swedish engineering firm Tyrens

following three years of operation (Jaredson,2002). Around 13,000 vehicles, including bendy-buses, traverse the square each day.Pedestrian volumes have, as expected, greatlyincreased, as has economic activity around thesquare. Most pedestrians take a direct routeacross the middle of the space, negotiatingmovement with the cyclists and vehicles.Traffic speeds have reduced significantly,and delays and congestion have also fallen.Surveys of drivers, cyclists and pedestriansindicated that satisfaction and confidencewith the new arrangements is increasing,

Figure 13. Skvallertorget,Norrköping, Sweden beforeand after remodelling of theintersection.


15/21



although there remains unease and concernamongst some older citizens and amongstthe blind and partially-sighted. Whatever itsshortcomings, as an example of shared spaceSkvallertorget in Norrköping demonstratesthat traffic signals, road markings, kerbs,crossings and barriers are not essentialelements that have to be tolerated as anunfortunate necessity for the maintenanceof safety and efficiency of movement. Adistinctive, coherent and integrated piece ofpublic space can successfully serve the needsof passing traffic without such disruptive,

expensive and disfiguring components.

Shared Space in the UK

As with the introduction of the woonerf or‘home zone’, shared space principles andpractice have taken hold later in the UKthan in much of mainland Europe. Howeverthere are signs that the concept is nowdeveloping faster in the UK than in othercountries.7 The widespread and growingrecognition of the importance of the public

realm to the social wellbeing and economicvitality of communities, combined with in-creasing popular dissatisfaction with thestate of British streets (English Heritage,2006), appears to have prompted stronginterest from local authorities, developersand community groups. The Commissionfor Architecture and the Built Environment,CABE Space, has played an important role inresearching and promoting interest in sharedspace in England. The Scottish Executivepublished its Planning Advice Note No. 76Residential Streets in December 2005, basedon many of the key principles, and thepublication of the Manual for Streets by theDepartment for Transport in March 2007provides formal recognition to the principleof streets as places as well as corridors formovement.

Completed projects that test the principlesof shared space are still thin on the groundin the UK. Whilst there are many fringes ofpedestrianized town centres that adopt some

characteristics such as level kerbs and sharedsurfaces, there are few that clearly establisha transformation in the relationship betweentraffic and other activities in the public realm.Nevertheless there are a number of notableexamples that point towards new directionsin street design and which demonstrate thepotential for the new approach to the builtenvironment.

Poundbury, the extension to Dorchesterpromoted by the Prince of Wales’ Trustand the Duchy of Cornwall, continues todemonstrate the potential for simplified

streets and public spaces that are notdominated by signs, markings and widesight lines. Few other new residentialdevelopments have achieved such integration,although there are notable examples innearby Charlton Down, and in the extensionto Harlow New Town at Newhall (CABE,2007a). Shared space forms the underlyingdesign philosophy for major schemes indevelopment at Ashford in Kent, Sherfordin Devon, Waterlooville in Hampshire,Craigmillar in Edinburgh and Calderwood

in West Lothian.Several English county councils have

started to incorporate shared space prin-ciples into policy manuals for towns andvillage streetscapes. Devon, Dorset, EastSussex, Essex, Hampshire and Kent CountyCouncils have started to develop and adoptthe principles, and Suffolk County Councilserves as the UK partner in the currentEuropean Union ‘InterReg’ shared spaceresearch project. Wiltshire County Councilhas explored the removal of road markingsin a number of rural villages (TRL, 2003),and there are isolated examples of pilot ruralschemes in Eynsham in Oxfordshire, Cliftonin Cumbria and Wellow near Bath.

But it is, perhaps inevitably, in city centreswhere the most significant progress has beenmade to rethink conventional engineeringsolutions and to readjust the relationship between traffic and other activities. There arenotable examples of the application of sharedspace design principles in the regeneration of


16/21



Ancoats Urban Village and New Islington inManchester, in the redesign of Hope Street,Liverpool, and in the city centre of Sheffield.The forecourt of Bristol Temple MeadsRailway Station is an early example from1993 of shared space design successfullyexploited to resolve the complexity of vehicleand passenger activity in the historic contextof Brunel’s Great Western Railway terminus(CABE, 2007a). In Blackett Street, Newcastle,and in Newbury town centre, shared spacedesign principles have successfully resolvedthe relationship between busy bus corridors

and pedestrian spaces, and similar principlesare in preparation for Westgate, Oxford andBrighton Marina.

In London, the Royal Borough of Kensing-ton and Chelsea (RBKC) has spearheadedthe introduction of shared space, building onthe widely recognized success of its recon-figuration of Kensington High Street (CABE,

2007a). Whilst retaining the conventionalformat of footways and formal crossingpoints, Kensington High Street demonstratedwhat can be achieved through the removalof pedestrian barriers, signs and other streetclutter. Despite carrying over 40,000 vehiclesper day, this busy arterial route into WestLondon succeeds through creating a dynamic between all the multitudinous users andactivities of the street. The use of the centralmedium strip for bicycle parking encouragesinformal cross-flows of pedestrians, and thecareful integration of street design with the

surrounding context, combined with thesimplicity and clarity of the detailing, createa coherent piece of public space that appearsto promote informal interaction and mutualconsideration amongst all the players in this busy section of London streetscape.

The success of Kensington High Street hasprompted the Royal Borough to produce

Figure 14. Blackett Street, Newcastle.


17/21



a comprehensive streetscape design guide(RBKC, 2005) which codifies many of thekey principles of shared space under theheading ‘Barrier-free Design’. More ambitiousproposals are in preparation for ExhibitionRoad in Kensington, intended to permittraffic to continue to move through a linear

public space that responds to the richlyvaried cultural context of this much-visitedstreet.

Perhaps the best example of sharedspace, and one that has withstood the

test of time, can be found in the heart ofLondon’s Covent Garden. As a result of thetireless efforts of the Seven Dials MonumentTrust, the restoration of Seven Dials in theearly 1990s not only restored a distinctivehistoric monument to one of London’smost memorable spaces, but created a

perfect demonstration of the potential fora busy junction to operate without formalcontrols, signage or regulation. The baseof the restored sundial serves to attractmuch human activity at the focal point of

Figure 15. Kensington HighStreet, West London (Photo:RBKC).

Figure 16. Proposals forExhibition Road. (Illustration:RBKC)


18/21



the converging seven streets, humanizingand animating what would otherwise bea mere roundabout. Traffic moves slowlyand steadily around the monument, whichhas none of the conventional roundaboutdirection signs. Congestion is rare, and therehave been no serious injuries recorded duringthe 16 years of operation of the currentarrangements.8 Although not the busiest ormost typical of London street intersections,Seven Dials nevertheless merits carefulobservation and analysis for anyone keento explore the potential for environmental

design and human psychology to reconcilethe complex relationship between people,places and traffic.

The Future of Shared Space

The ideas, concepts and practice illustrated

by the examples from Britain and main-land Europe demand a fundamental recon-sideration of many long-standing assumptionsabout traffic in towns, and represent a sea-change in our approach to street design,traffic planning and the opportunities fora public realm. It is an approach that isstill in its infancy, and there remain many barriers to overcome, observations to bemade, evaluations to be conducted andexperience to be gained. Questions remain asto what extent shared space can help resolve busier streets and intersections. Creativity

and development is required to improveperceptions of safety and navigational aidsfor the visually impaired. The relationship between visual clues (such as apparent roadwidths, signs, kerbs and road markings) anddriver behaviour remains little understood.Nevertheless shared space opens up a whole

Figure 17. Seven Dials, Covent Garden. Perfect integration of traffic with the public realm.


19/21



new vocabulary and design framework forthe built environment, bringing together anumber of strands of current thinking.

The end to separation of traffic movementfrom the public realm and the move towardsshared space has important implications forthe training and professional developmentof all the disparate disciplines involved. In-tegration of engineering with urban designimplies a broadening of awareness and knowl-edge amongst professionals and technicianswho, until recently, have shared only asketchy understanding of each other’s roles.

It is encouraging to see the Public RealmInformation Advice Network (PRIAN), sup-ported by the Institute of Highway Engineersand English Heritage, amongst others,extending and developing training in thecomprehensive design and management ofthe public realm.9

Shared space raises the potential for aradically different vision for the streetsof towns and cities for the future. Withsufficient professional support and politicaldetermination, it could hold the key to

reversing the long-lamented decline in thequality of streets, both in Britain and acrossthe rest of the world, where cars and trafficare likely to remain an inevitable componentof our social and economic structures. If thefindings from the increasing number of sharedspace schemes continue to demonstrate thepositive outcomes from treating drivers asintelligent citizens, governed by the samesocial protocols that underpin civility inother public places, there is a hope that thesegregated world of post-war urban planningwill no longer need to blight the coherenceand quality of the built environment.

NOTES

1. See CIAM – The Athens Charter. http://www.open2.net/modernity/4_2.htm. Accessed 1February 2008.

2. ‘Panda’ crossings were introduced in the UKin April 1962 to establish a signalized pedestriancrossing. They were replaced by ‘pelicans’ in

1968, and then by ‘puffins’. ‘Toucans’ refer tocombined pedestrian and bicycle crossings (‘twocan cross’).

3. A brief history and summary of researchfindings on these and other schemes can be foundat http://www.shared-space.org/ – ‘Projects’page.

4. ‘desire line: The shortest, most direct route between facilities or places’, from Cowan (2005).

5. The Laweiplein was modelled using, amongstother software packages, ‘Omni-X’ systemto calculate theoretical capacity and delays(Smallingerland Municipality, 2007, p. 16)

6. A selection of international press reports can be found on the European Shared-Space researchproject website; http://shared-space.org.

7. Shared Space newsletter, June 2007, availableat http://www.shared-space.org/files/18445/5LRnieuwsbriefSS.07_7.pdf.

8. Based on records of Seven Dials Trust, andenquiries with Camden Borough Council (July2007).

9. PRIAN. Design and Management of the PublicRealm. www.publicrealm.info.

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1988) Evaluating the effectivenessof road safety measures. Traffic Engineering &Control, June, pp. 344–352. Available at http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/PDFs/Evaluating%20safety%20measures.pdf

Adams, John (1995) Risk. London: Routledge.Adams, John (2007) Shared Space – Would it Work

in Los Angeles? Available at john-adams.co.uk/2007/09/08/shared-space-would-it-work-in-los-angeles/. Accessed 14 September 2007.

Buchanan, Colin et al. (1963) Traffic in Towns.London: HMSO.

CABE Space (2005) What Are We Scared Of? TheValue of Risk in Designing Public Space. London:CABE.

CABE Space (2007a) This Way to Better Streets.www.cabe.org.uk/streets

CABE Space (2007b) Campaigns and Research: PublicSpace. Available at http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=185. Accessed 14September 2007.

CABE Space (2007c) Paved with Gold: The RealValue of Street Design. Available at http://


20/21



cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=1956.Accessed 14 September 2007.

Cavill, Nick (ed.) (2007) Building Health. London:National Heart Forum, CABE and LivingStreets. Available at http://www.heartforum.org.uk/Publications_NHFreports_Pub_BuildHealth.aspx. Accessed 1 February 2008.

CNU (Congress for New Urbanism) (2007)CNU/ITE Street Design Manual. Available athttp://www.cnu.org/node/127. Accessed 14September 2007.

The Civic Trust (2007) Civic Trust Streets Award.Available at http://www.civictrust.org.uk/awards/awards.shtml. Accessed 14 September2007

Cowan, R. (2005) The Dictionary of Urbanism.Tisbury: Streetwise Press.

CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) (2007)Roads: Clutter Challenge. Available at http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns. Accessed 14September 2007.

DETR (Department of the Environment, Transportand the Regions) (1998) Traffic Speeds in InnerLondon. London: DETR.

DfT (Department for Transport) (2005) TransportStatistics Bulletin, National Travel Survey 2004.SB (05)30. London: DfT.

DfT and DCLG (2007) Manual for Streets. London.

Thomas Telford. Available on-line at http://www.manualforstreets.org.uk/.

EHTF (English Historic Towns Forum) (2007)Streetscape. Available at http://83.170.75.16/mod/resource/view.php?id=63. Accessed 14September 2007.

English Heritage (2005) Save Our Streets. Availableat http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.8680. Accessed 14 September 2007.

English Heritage (2006) Streets for All. London:English Heritage.

Engwicht, David (2006) Mental Speed Bumps.Melbourne: Creative Communities Internation-al. Available at http://www.ccishop.com/

home.php.Florida, Richard (2005) Cities and the Creative Class.

London: Routledge.

Fryslân Province (2005) Room for Everyone.Leeuwarden. Published in the framework of theInterreg IIIB project ‘Shared Space’. Availablefrom www.shared-space.org.

Gehl, J. (1987) Life between Buildings. New York:Van Nostrand.

Hamilton-Baillie, B. and Jones, P. (2005) Improvingtraffic behaviour and safety through urban

design. ICE Proceedings (Civil Engineering),158, pp. 39–47.

Hénard, E. (1905) Études sure les transformation deParis et autre ecrits sur l’urbanism. Paris.

IHIE (Institute of Highway Incorporated Engine-ers) (2002) Home Zone Design Guidelines.London: IHIE.

IPPR (Institute of Public Policy Research)(2002) Streets Ahead. Available from http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publications.

Jacobs, Alan, B. (1985) Looking at Cities. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Jacobs, Alan B. (1995) Great Streets. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Jacobs, Alan B., Macdonald, Elizabeth and Rofé,Yodan (2001) The Boulevard Book: History,Evolution, Design of Multiway Boulevards. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jaredson, S. (2002) Evaluation of Skvallertorget inNorrköping. Norrköping: Linköpings Univers-ity.

Ministry of Transport (1966) Roads in Urban Areas.London: HMSO, p. 14.

Moran, J. (2006) Crossing the road in Britain, 1931–1976. The Historical Journal, 49, pp. 477–496.

PRIAN (Public Realm Information and Advice

Network) (2007) Available at http://www.publicrealm.info/index.php?index. Accessed 14September 2007

Project for Public Spaces (2007) PlacemakerProfiles. Available at http://www.pps.org/info/placemakingtools/placemakers/ajacobs.Accessed 14 September 2007.

RBKC (Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea)(2005) Streetscape Design Guide. Internal policydocument available from Royal Borough.

Scottish Executive (2005) Residential Streets.Planning Advice Note 76. Edinburgh: ScottishExecutive.

Smallingerland Municipality (2007) The Laweiplein:Evaluation of the Reconstruction into a Squarewith Roundabout. Leeuwarden: NoordelijkeHogeschool. (English version available fromthe author – [email protected])

Transport Research Laboratory (1998) The Factorsthat Influence Drivers’ Choice of Speed. TRL 325.Crowthorne: TRL.

Transport Research Laboratory (2003) RoadDesign Measures to Reduce Drivers’ Speed viaPsychological Processes: A Literature Review. TRL564. Crowthorne: TRL.


21/21



Transport Research Laboratory (2005)‘Psychological’Traffic Calming. TRL 641. Crowthorne: TRL.

Transport Research Laboratory and CEEMA (2003) An Evaluation of the Effect of Removing WhiteLines. For Wiltshire County Council.

Vahl, H.G. and Giskes, J (1990) Traffic Calmingthrough Integrated Urban Planning. Paris.Amarcande.

Van den Boomen, T. (2002) Weg met de regels! HetNieuwe Woonerf . NCR Hamdelsblad, 2 June2000, p. 5. Available in English (translated July2001) at http://www.hamilton-baillie.co.uk/articles.htm#media

Wolf, P.M. (1969) Eugène Hénard and the Beginningsof Urbanism in Paris, 1900–1914. The Hague:International Federation for Housing andPlanning.

Ben Hamilton-Baillie Espai Compartit

Documents

Transcript of Ben Hamilton-Baillie Espai Compartit