Peer review: Laura Kidd
Head of Architecture, HS2
In my view, the question is not whether the railway is making the most of its development land, but whether the railway understands its role in providing the best possible places for people to live and work, in and around its stations.
From large city interchanges to small stations, transport hubs are a central focus for the places that they serve. Railways are there to provide a service to their passengers, but these passengers also live and work around the stations. There should not be an isolationist approach - the best transport designs and developments have people and places at their heart.
The relationship between station owners, developers and local councils is the key to maximising prospects for the public realm. I also think that local councils are best placed to take the lead, but with some smaller councils being limited in their resources and experience, developers and station owners may need to assist them in developing the best opportunities.
Lessons are being learned, and this is evident from the cited case studies. Things that were acceptable 20 or even ten years ago would not pass muster now. One of the aspects of St Pancras station that could have been better is the public realm around it. The Barlow Shed is a splendid landmark, but at street level more could have been done to activate the station facades and provide a more permeable and integrated public realm. A fully activated and integrated public realm not only makes people feel safer, it is safer.
Stations, especially large to medium-sized ones, are first and foremost in the public realm. They can positively influence their surroundings to make places work better for passengers and local people. Manchester City Council has taken the opportunity of the forthcoming HS2 station in Piccadilly to drive a development scheme for the area. Similarly, this is happening with the GLA vision for Old Oak Common.
Council involvement can help to ensure that the development is not just about financial returns. Councils can help drive the vision for a development that will provide the optimum mix of public and private buildings and local amenities, alongside integrated and intermodal transport plans.
The integration of over-site development into a station’s design raises many issues. Air space above stations, especially in high-price property areas, is seen as a good development opportunity, although building over a railway always adds additional costs. If the development is over the concourse and platforms, the station will have to take the often significant structure of the development into its operational realm. This isn’t a problem for deep metro stations, where the separation of the railway is far removed from the development, but for surface stations, this potentially has two negative effects. When change is proposed - especially rebuilding or refurbishment - there will always be an interface that the station must manage, and that may have an impact on the passenger experience and perspective.
Additionally, we have cultural expectations for our railway stations - the historic idea of an airy, light train shed is quite deep in our psyche. Over-site development must be designed to mitigate these conflicting needs and potential negative impacts.
