Underneath the Arches in the East End: An Evaluation of the Planning and Design Policy Context of the East London Line Extension Project

Abstract

Historically the development of principles and practice for integrated planning and urban design around suburban railway stations has not been a core component of British planning. However, over the past decade or so, in response to the growth of a consensus around the need to promote more sustainable transport behaviour, this situation has begun to change. This paper reviews the contemporary literature for integrated planning and design at and around stations and derives a set of analytical criteria which are used to evaluate the policy context for a new railway project in East London: the East London Line Extension. Conclusions are drawn as to whether the principles of good practice are being adhered to and the likelihood of the stations and their environs becoming exemplars of good practice for others to follow.

The geography of London's recent beer brewing revolution

“…During the industrial revolution, viaducts were constructed of brick arches to support many of the railways running into central London (Hendey ). These urban viaducts have faced much criticism, mainly because of their intrusive aesthetic brutalism and their tendency to form physical barriers to movement, segregating large areas in the city (Haywood ). Historically, they have also been problematic spaces – while many arches are quite large, they were often unsuitable for many activities because of issues such as noise and vibration, water penetration, poor ventilation, and lack of natural daylight (Hendey ).…”

Rail Transit Identification and Neighbourhood Identity. Exploring the Potential for ‘Community-Supportive Transit’

“…Those who do consider more qualitative, locally-specific outcomes as important objectives of transit planning (Vuchic, 1999(Vuchic, , 2005Boarnet & Crane, 2001;Bruun, 2007;Cedar, 2007) tend to ignore issues of community identity beyond basic functional or aesthetic gestures. Authors focused specifically on rail stations, such as Edwards (1997), Ross (2000) and Haywood (2005), have contributed to our understanding of the importance of locally-specific design components and the potential for stations to meaningfully relate to communities (see also Haywood, 2008 for a recent review), but still largely avoid the less tangible realm of social identity and organization. Similarly, Podobnik (2002) describes the ability of transit centres to promote 'community sociability' and Brown & Werner (2008) have shown promising evidence that place attachment (as well as neighbourhood satisfaction) increases with transit use, but neither pay attention to the impact of identification or other neighbourhoodspecific design.…”