|
dere-street.com
a variety of things, some useful. |
|
|
dere-street.com
a variety of things, some useful. |
|
Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, is a city of variety and contrast. Dominated by the Old and New towns, the historic landscape of the city contains 32 conservation areas, including 20 outstanding conservation areas which contain 58% of the region’s listed buildings (Lothian Regional Council, 1994a). The importance of the city has been widely recognised, with the significant impact of the local festivals: tourism plays a substantial role and contributes to 40% of non-food spending in city centre.
Edinburgh contains the 4th largest shopping area in the UK, behind only London, Birmingham and Glasgow. Shopping is focused primarily around Princes Street itself, although there is significant on-street retailing stretching outwards from the core, through Tollcross, the South Side, and towards Leith. Retailing, and in particular the preservation of the existing retail hierarchy, is important to the city, and is repeatedly emphasised in local plans. The two study regions account for approximately 18% of the total number of stores in Edinburgh (as of 1986), and approximately one third of all floor space.
The local economy is dominated by government, financial and educational services, which together account for 76% of all Edinburgh employment (Lothian Regional Council, 1977: p. 27). These services are concentrated in the city centre, which is the largest employment centre in Lothian with some 145,000 jobs (58% of the total for the entire region), and which has attracted significant public and private investment since the late 80s (City of Edinburgh District Council, 1997).
This chapter provides both a context for, and overviews of, the changes that occurred in the study regions between 1979 and 1994. It provides a brief synopsis of the historic forces that have shaped the development of the city, before exploring in detail the policies and background issues that have affected development in the study regions. This is followed by an examination of the future prospects for the study regions, and examines the Council’s twin roles of protector of the environment and supporter of development.
Perched high on the Castle rock, the Edinburgh Old Town was a prototype ribbon development, stretching from the Castle down along the Lawnmarket and the Royal Mile towards Holyrood Palace. With the exception of development along the Canongate, growth in the medieval Old Town was constrained by the boundaries of the Flodden Wall until the middle of the 18th century. The result was a dense city, characterised by high tenements constructed around small wynds and closes. Unable to expand beyond the city walls, without any of the connections to the surrounding areas that we now take for granted (North and South Bridge, George IV Bridge, The Mound), and suffering from the removal of many governmental functions from the city after the Act of Union, the city stagnated.
The New Town, and Princes Street in particular, were the first new streets to be laid down in Edinburgh for several centuries. The New Town is one of the, if not the first, planned ‘New Towns’, with the land purchased by the council in 1766 and Princes Street, George Street and Queen Streets laid out to the plans of James Craig. Six years later the first North Bridge was completed, and over the next decade the Mound was created from the construction debris generated by the construction of Craig’s vision. Simultaneously, George Square was built to the south of the Old Town in 1766 as a speculative housing development. With the construction of South Bridge in 1788, the outlines for the Edinburgh we see today were emerging. Development continued with the northwards expansion of the New Town through the James Reid’s Second New Town, while development to the south of the Old Town around George Square was facilitated by the construction of George IV Bridge in 1836 (City of Edinburgh District Council, 1997).
This suburban construction sparked an upheaval in the Old Town, precipitating a considerable outward migration of the middle and upper classes from the cramped Old Town. As their place (and wealth) were replaced by an influx of rural workers, the medieval city began to decay. Houses and tenements were subdivided, and congestion and overcrowding began to substantially increase, with the population of the Old Town doubling from 22,476 in 1801 to an all-time high of 39,948 in 1861 (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1980).
Recognising these problems, in 1867 the Council began to regenerate the Old Town by rebuilding it, cutting St. Mary’s, Blackfriar’s, Chambers, Market and Jeffrey Streets through the wynds and closes of the medieval city. With the reconstruction of Waverley Station in 1892, closely followed by the construction of a new North Bridge in 1897, the construction of the North British Hotel in 1902 sees the completion of the foundations of the city centre that exists today (Abercrombie and Plumstead, 1949; McWilliam, 1996).
The Princes Street study region contains a substantial proportion of Craig’s First New Town, including all of the frontage of Princes and Rose Streets, and a considerable portion of the central section of George Street. Sites along Queen Street, Charlotte Square and the western portions of George Street are not included in the dataset. While the Princes Street study region is contained within the boundaries of the New Town Conservation Area, it represents a relatively small proportion of the total area covered by the Conservation Area. Princes Street is the dominant retail centre of the city and the surrounding region, while George Street contains a significant number of offices and retail sites. The population of the region is low, the majority of the housing having been converted either to offices or redeveloped into retail units.
During the nineteenth century, many of the Georgian dwellings along Princes Street were replaced as a result of the commercial pressures in the centre: the resulting destruction of the standardised architectural style was widely criticised (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1982). With the rise in the numbers of automobiles, the conflict between traffic and the street which has been such a feature of the history of Princes Street in the last half of the twentieth century had emerged as a significant issue by the early 30s.
The 1949 City Plan noted that the population in the Princes Street region had declined markedly, especially in comparison to the very high population concentrations in the Old Town. It was suggested that the remaining population centres near Princes Street, the neighbourhood around St. James Square and Greenside at the east end of Princes Street, should be cleared and renewed, in recognition of their considerable decline. It was felt that very little of Princes Street’s frontage was worth preserving: the plan called for the retention of only three or four buildings along Princes Street, the remainder to be replaced by larger (and thus more suitable) retail premises (Abercrombie and Plumstead, 1949; see also Whitehand, 1992). This disparagement of the quality of the fabric of Princes Street would be a recurring theme of analyses of the region for the next thirty years.
The Council’s 1958 planning report on Princes Street reached broadly similar conclusions about the lack of any need to preserve the existing fabric of the street: thus it encouraged wholesale redevelopment, and specified that all new buildings should include a first floor walkway along the first floor frontages facing Princes Street, each would eventually become a component of a continuous elevated walkway running the length of Princes Street. It was clear that the intention of the Council was to redevelop the street in its entirety. Plans for this walkway were a response to the continuing conflicts between pedestrians and traffic along Princes Street. As it was accepted that traffic could not be moved from Princes Street, there was thus a need for alternative provision for pedestrians. The traffic levels along Princes Street continued, however, to increase over the next thirty years, to the detriment of city centre pedestrians (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1982: p. 6).
In the 60s, a high proportion of the buildings along Princes Street were still over 70 years old, indicating that despite the renewal anticipated by the 1949 plan, much of the street had yet to be redeveloped, although many large sites would be cleared and redeveloped during the 1960s for the growing number of retail multiples who were locating along Princes Street. At this time, Princes Street was the only segment of the city receiving significant amounts of private investment (Hewitson, 1968). St. James Square was finally cleared to allow comprehensive redevelopment (City of Edinburgh District Council, 1997: p. 102), amid calls for the redevelopment of Waverley Station and the linking of Princes Street and the Royal Mile via a series of new shops along the North Bridge (Jones, 1963).
The Princes Street Panel’s Report of 1967 set the framework for the further redevelopment of Princes Street, aiming to better integrate new buildings into the street. Given that the council had to compensate owners of listed buildings if they refused permission for their demolition, the plan was felt to be a pragmatic attempt to guide the significant levels of redevelopment anticipated by local Council. Like its predecessor in 1958, the Princes Street Panel assumed that Princes Street would be redeveloped in its entirety, and thus proposed a standard street section to go with the continued demands for the provision of elevated walkways. The Panel anticipated similar levels of comprehensive redevelopment along George Street: fortunately this did not occur. It would be 1982 before these plans were rescinded (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1982).
At the time of the 1967 report, few buildings along Princes Street were listed, as it was assumed the street would need to be completely redeveloped, and the council was unable to meet the financial burden implicit in attempts to preserve listed buildings. The planning policies approved with the report made it difficult to retain existing buildings along Princes Street, whether listed or not, and this was in later years regarded as a serious failure (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1982: p. 1-3). With the passage of the Civic Amenities Act of 1967, it became possible to classify areas as conservation areas, and the New Town Conservation Area, the largest single grant aided scheme in Britain, was established in 1970 (McWilliam, 1996). The number of listed buildings along Princes Street then slowly began to rise, although significant numbers of buildings would not be listed until the early 80s.
Figure 5.1: Listed buildings in the Princes Street study region, 1994.
At present none of the functions of the area is performed satisfactorily. Many residential properties lie empty and sites are undeveloped; buildings of historic interest are not being maintained and are decreasing in number; there is an increasing imbalance in the type of shops and facilities for residents in the area and the high standard of tourist facilities, hotels, restaurants, which visitors might expect in a central and historic area does not exist (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1980: p. 8).
The Royal Mile/St. Giles study region includes almost all of pre-Georgian Edinburgh, with the exceptions of the Cowgate, Canongate and Grassmarket, which are not covered by the Goad survey region. The Old Town is the historic centre of the city, and is dominated by significant institutional uses, including local and national government offices, law courts and university buildings.
Figure 5.2: Concentration of Institutional and University uses, St. Giles 1990.
The St. Giles study region straddles two Conservation Areas: to the north that of the Old Town Conservation Area, which covers sites north of Chambers Street, along with additional areas to the east and west of the Royal Mile which fall outwith the study region, and the South Side Conservation Area, into which falls the southern portion of the study region, although this represents a relatively small proportion of the South Side Conservation Area.
As was the case with Princes Street, Abercrombie’s 1949 plan felt that little of the region was worth preserving, and envisioned the reconstruction of the Old Town around a few ‘notable’ landmarks along the Royal Mile (Abercrombie and Plumstead, 1949; Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal, 1990). Considerable portions of the High Street (approximately 50%) were found to be in poor or very poor condition, a situation which would remain broadly unchanged for the next forty years.
Figure 5.3: Listed buildings in the St. Giles study region, 1994.
The Old Town has suffered significant declines in the local population, which dropped by 3/4 between 1951 and 1990, in combination with the winding down of much of the local industrial base, in particular the breweries and workshops along the Cowgate and the Canongate (Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal, 1990). The region is home to significant numbers of homeless people, and contains large numbers of students and the elderly, but few families, due to a lack of suitable housing.
During the 60s and 70s, the streets of the Old Town were increasingly blighted by rising numbers of vacancies, combined with growing numbers of gap sites (particularly the site now occupied by the Holiday Inn at the corner of the Royal Mile and North Bridge). The majority of (re)developments in the region were criticised for their relatively poor architectural quality, although the government’s emphasis was upon the renovating and revitalising the region’s housing stock, which was in exceptionally poor condition. Like the housing stock, many of listed buildings in the region were in poor condition, ironically, the worst being those around the High Street/Royal Mile. The Royal Mile had become a facade, "lined, in a sense, with stage sets – historic facades concealing squalid closes and derelict buildings" (Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal, 1990: p. 2).
Significant numbers of residential listed buildings had also deteriorated, to the point where many could not be saved (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1980). The entire eastern side of Nicolson Street between West Richmond Street and East Crosscauseway was derelict, despite being almost entirely comprised of listed buildings. While a number of buildings could not be saved, the remainder were gutted, the facades preserved and interiors rebuilt as part of the first substantial redevelopment within the South Side Conservation Area (T. Harley Haddow & Partners, 1974).
The decline in the local population was paralleled by declines in local retailing, which was affected by the effective collapse of the local market, combined with the impact of rationalisation within the sector, the development of new retail methods which could not be adopted by local sites due to the constraints of small plot sizes and restrictions of conservation planning, added to competition from new retail centres, particularly the St. James Centre which opened in 1973. The result was the continued closure of small local shops, which resulted in vacancy rates markedly higher than in Princes Street (Lothian Regional Council, 1977). The neighbourhood around Nicholson St. was most affected by this population loss, which, when combined with the eventual closure of all the department stores in the Old Town, resulted in marked declines in the local shopping facilities (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1980).
Despite the concentration of heritage sites in the region and the Old Town’s great potential, there was very little investment in the tourist infrastructure (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1980: p. 8), while the local quality of life was threatened by the substantial traffic problems the Old Town faced. With few relief routes available, there was little opportunity to relieve traffic congestion, short of the construction of substantial new road works: the threat of a ‘Bridges Relief Road’ which would relieve congestion on the North and South Bridges by cutting a new road through the eastern end of the Royal Mile, occupied local campaigners for the best part of the 60s and 70s (Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal, 1990).
The study period (1979-94) has seen significant structural and organisational shifts in retailing, perhaps most significantly through the impact of the retail revolution (Dawson, 1988), and the significant migration of chain stores into the high street (i.e. Princes Street). Technological and organisation developments (including improvements in distribution and stock control/management) have increasingly tilted competition in favour of the continued growth in numbers of multiples (Murray, 1988; City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1990). The result of this competition has been increased pressure on independent retailers, and the closure of significant numbers of smaller local shops (cf. Smith and Sparks, 1997), with increasing levels of vacancies, especially in the St. Giles region (Lothian Regional Council, 1977; City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1980). The continuing demand for out of town retail development continued to place pressure on the city’s greenbelt, and the opening of the Cameron Toll development on the southern edge of the St. Giles study region in 1984 placed additional pressure on South Side retailers, local produce stores in particular. The development of city-centre town management schemes was one of the many suggestions to help retailers respond to these changes, although such plans have yet to be implemented (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1990).
In line with the planning guidance issued by the Scottish Office (Scottish Office Development Department, 1996; Scottish Executive Development Department, 1999), the focus of the retail policies of the various levels of local government has been to preserve the existing retail hierarchy, maintaining the position of Princes Street as the dominant retail centre within the region and South East Scotland (Lothian Regional Council, 1978; Lothian Regional Council, 1994b). Generally, there has been a continued resistance to the growth of out of town retailing, including the development of retail warehouses and superstores. The Council does not regard the latter developments as significant threats to the traditional shopping areas, preferring to focus on the threat from purpose built shopping centres on the urban fringe (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1990: p. 35) and from competing regional centres, particularly Glasgow and Newcastle (City of Edinburgh District Council Economic Development Committee, 1998). It is interesting to note that the most significant exception to the presumption against out of town development, the Gyle, was developed in part by the local Council.
The development of the Gyle Shopping Centre must be seen within the context of a growing fear that consumers within Edinburgh have considerable (and growing) amounts of unserviced expenditure, and the Council and Regional governments have responded aggressively, seeking to grasp and implement any possible retail developments that would keep this spending within the city boundaries. Parallel to this is the growing demand for retail floor-space, which the Council is finding increasingly difficult to supply while maintaining the position of the city centre, and that of Princes Street in particular (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1990).
Apart from the Waverley Centre, which was opened in 1984, the opportunities to increase the amounts of retail floor-space in central Edinburgh have been limited. The result is what the Council regards as high levels of overcrowding in the centre, with the attendant traffic problems. Given the difficulties in developing additional floor-space, the Council has attempted to increase the density of retail uses, emphasising the greater use of the upper stories of retail units, particularly along Princes Street. This has been combined with attempts to increase the numbers of retail uses along George Street, by facilitating the conversion of offices to retail units (etc.). To maintain (and reinforce) the existing concentrations of retail uses along the dominant shopping streets, the Council instituted a policy in 1981 of restricting the numbers of non-retail uses in major shopping centres, including both the Princes Street and St. Giles study regions (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1990).
A high priority of the Council, the Regional government and the various conservation bodies was the upgrading of traditional high streets. These strategies include the funding of shop-front and streetscape improvements, increased control over signage policies, increased pedestrianisation, and the development of specialised shopping streets (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1990).
The city centre, in particular the Princes Street region along George Street, has been the traditional location of office space in Edinburgh. Significant proportions of George Street have been converted to offices, where redevelopment has often been hidden behind retained facades (Richards, 1994). The desire to increase the amount of retail space in the centre has led to the Council’s encouragement for these office uses to move to alternative city centre locations (Goad Plans, 1986).
While the official policy has been to restrain office development in the city centre, this policy has gone through several noticeable transitions. The pressures of rising demand for offices, and in particular the growing competition between offices and other uses (primarily retail and housing) led to the Region restricting office development in the core in 1978 (Lothian Regional Council, 1978).
When the 1985 Structure Plan was developed, it marked a shift in office policy to encourage office development in the city. This growth was not to be focused on the existing office areas within the New Town however, but on those to the immediate south west, where the Morrison St. railway yards were the site of long-term redevelopment plans. The construction of the Edinburgh International Conference Centre and the Edinburgh Exchange in the early 90s resulted in a marked increase in city centre office space (Lothian Regional Council, 1994a).
From the turn of the century plans by Caledonian Railways to run rail services under Princes Street/George Street as part of a circular network linking the downtown core with Leith and Trinity (Smith and Anderson, 1995: p. 57-8), to the current plans to build busways linking the Princes Street and the western end of the city (Lothian Regional Council, 1995a), the last century has seen repeated attempts to redefine the transport infrastructure in central Edinburgh.
There have been constant conflicts and tensions between the automobile, public transport and the pedestrian in both of the study regions since the 30s. While the small streets, Victorian era Bridges and lack of alternative routes have been a sure recipe for vehicular congestion in the Old Town, Princes Street suffers both from its relative accessibility to automobiles, and from the extra traffic generated from its position as a convenient cross town transit route.
While Edinburgh was well served by commuter rail at the turn of the century, competition from buses and trams saw local rail services begin to decline in the 1920s, before being finally gutted in the 60s as a result of the recommendations of the Beeching report. The increased competition for road space from automobiles led in turn to the abrupt removal of tram services from the core in the mid 50s (Smith and Anderson, 1995: p. 7), leaving a public transit system that was heavily reliant upon bus services, as it remains to this day (Lothian Regional Council, 1994a: p. 228).
Debate over the state of Princes Street during the 30s focused on the need to widen Princes Street to cope with the rising levels of traffic, but this was complicated by the location of the RSA at the foot of the Mound, which would have had to be substantially altered to facilitate traffic flow. By 1949, the high levels of traffic along Princes Street meant that the construction of a by pass of some description was "clearly necessary".
Abercrombie proposed to connect Leith Walk with the Pleasance by constructing a road through Calton Hill and across the eastern end of Waverley Station. It was felt that the construction of a bypass to the south of the Castle was impractical, given that the obvious route would require the reconstruction of both the Grassmarket and the Cowgate (and possibly both George IV and South Bridges). Routing traffic north of Princes Street along Queen Street was also felt to be unacceptable, and so a radical alternative was proposed, which called for Princes Street to be completely excavated, and a bypass buried underneath the street: above the by-pass would be built an under-street car park, on top of which the existing street would be re-laid (Abercrombie and Plumstead, 1949).
While this radical plan was not implemented, traffic levels continued to rise. A decade later, the Council’s 1958 planning report on Princes Street felt that the only solution to conflicts between traffic and pedestrians along Princes Street was to construct a new walkway running along the first floor frontages of buildings facing Princes Street. The success of such a plan however relied upon the complete redevelopment of Princes Street, which did not occur, nor did the plan stem the rising traffic levels along Princes Street (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1982).
It would be another twenty years before serious plans to redress the traffic problems in Princes Street in particular were implemented. With the emergence of regional governments, it was recognised that the city faced unsustainable transport conflicts: hence plans were put in place to maximise the impact of public transport, for it was realised that despite the traffic problems the core faced, car ownership in the region was significantly below the national average – a situation which was bound to change (Lothian Regional Council, 1977: p. 58).
The 80s saw the pedestrianisation of Rose Street, together with the widening of sidewalks along Princes Street (Lothian Regional Council, 1994b). They also saw continued conflict between the local council and regional government over the provision of parking spaces in the city centre, and around Princes Street in particular. Recognising the growing traffic problems, the Council supported the use of public transit by aggressively reducing the numbers of parking spaces in the city centre, in direct opposition to the regional government, which sought significant increases in parking provision (Goad Plans, 1986). This restrictive trend was eventually reinforced through the imposition of wide-ranging restrictions on long-stay parking in the city centre, with the development of electronic sign-posting systems to maximise the efficiency of city centre car parking and minimise the impact of the removal of on-street parking (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1990).
By the 90s it was widely accepted that excessive traffic was having significant consequences on all city centre users (Lothian Regional Council, 1994c), while surveys of Princes Street reinforced the need to radically reshape traffic flows in favour of pedestrians, instead of the automobile which dominated Edinburgh’s premier street (Lothian Regional Council, 1994a: p. 233). The result was an increased emphasis upon pedestrians within planning and transport policies: hence the move towards increased pedestrianisation in both the Old and New Towns, significant investment in the redevelopment of sidewalks and pedestrian areas, and a focus on the car/pedestrian conflict which increasingly emphasised the role (and rights) of pedestrians within the city (Lothian Regional Council, 1995c).
Current policy aims to stem increases in car traffic in and about the city centre by 2000, and to reduce traffic by 30% within the decade (Lothian Regional Council, 1995b). The development of long term public transport strategies has been made more difficult by the removal of bus services from local control after the 1985 Transportation Act, a problem exacerbated by the more recent rail privatisation. Transit policy continues to advocate the increased use of buses, particularly through the Greenways scheme which gives priority to buses over other forms of traffic. While the long term goal is the development of a light rail system, hence the funding of the (re)construction of commuter stations during the 80s (Lothian Regional Council, 1994c; Lothian Regional Council, 1995b), there is very little local funding available for transport improvements. The proceeds from the sale of the Council’s share of the Gyle development provided significant portions of funding for the Greenways scheme, and without substantial funding from central government, parking taxes and road pricing may be the only alternatives left to the Council to fund infrastructure improvements (City of Edinburgh Council, 2000c).
From the proposed underground road of the 1949 plan to the myriad bypasses proposed since, the need to juggle the competing desires of (suburban) traffic and of the city centre and the pedestrian has bedevilled the development of the core and of Princes Street in particular. As the rate of car ownership in the region has risen, it has become increasingly clear that the core is unable, the council unwilling, to accommodate any growth in levels of automobile traffic. While the removal of eastbound traffic on Princes Street has allowed for significant widening of sidewalks, Princes Street is still negatively affected by the noise and pollution caused by the remaining traffic, while the expanded sidewalks are still insufficient to cope with the peak concentrations of pedestrians attempting to move along Princes Street.
Any attempts to increase the attractiveness of the core, either through increases in the levels of retail floor-space or through the efforts of wider city-management and redevelopment schemes, will undoubtedly fail unless the fundamental traffic issues are addressed. While the attempts to replace private traffic with public transit are laudable in theory, in practice the development of public transit alternatives remains slow, the uptake limited. The core of Edinburgh has become too successful for its limited vehicular infrastructure: the focus on competition with other cities avoids confronting the real local problems, and resists the development of appropriate local and locally scaled solutions to the issues of development and traffic. The core is in the middle of a period of immense transition, yet the council is unable to chart a credible path towards its vision of a revitalised global city in the third millennium.
Princes Street is the primary retail centre within Edinburgh and the surrounding region, and is dominated by large multiples, particularly along Princes Street itself, which was dominated by corporate shop fronts which did not blend in with the remaining historic architecture or the wider streetscape. Princes Street has very high rates and rents (amongst the highest in the UK), a combination which has forced out many of the earlier established retailers (particularly in the face of competition with multiples) during the 70s and 80s. These high costs have contributed to noticeable spikes in vacancy rates during recessions (Goad Plans, 1986). Immediately to the east of Princes Street is the St. James Centre, Edinburgh’s primary (downtown) enclosed mall, which was opened in 1973 and expanded with the construction of a food court in the mid 90s.
Development in the region was characterised by attempts to constrain office growth in the centre, in order to protect existing retail uses (Lothian Regional Council, 1977). Wider efforts to protect retailing have continued through the development of wider restrictions on the opening of non-retail uses within the principle shopping areas throughout the Princes Street study region (Goad Plans, 1986). With the considerable growth in new office construction in the city centre during the late 80s and early 90s, combined with high vacancy rates for offices in the New Town, the council began to encourage the removal of office functions from George Street, in favour of retail and appropriate service uses, although significant amounts of office space remain in the region (Lothian Regional Council, 1994a).
The development guidelines of the Princes Street Panel report of 1968, which encouraged the development of an above street foot walk and the use of a standard frontage style for new development, was finally dropped in 1982, to be replaced with a series of policies emphasising the retention of existing listed buildings, the development of pedestrianisation, and reducing the impact of traffic in the core (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1982; McWilliam, 1996).
The construction of the Waverley Centre in 1984, was the first substantial growth in retail floor-space within city centre since the construction of the St. James Centre a decade earlier. The development of this mall, squeezed between Princes Street and Waverley station, was very difficult, with constant conflict between the developer and the Royal Fine Art Commission, which protected the existing views along Princes Street. When finally completed, the development had very few tenants, despite boasting the only significant food court/source of convenience food in the Princes Street region itself, and took several years before attracting a full complement of tenants. Plans were also developed to turn the North British Hotel into a mall/department store, although very little of the anticipated retailing was included in the final redevelopment of the hotel (Goad Plans, 1986).
The region has seen a dramatic shift in transport policies, with a great emphasis upon pedestrianisation, and concerted action to support the use of public transit and make the use of the private car as inconvenient as possible. The number of parking spaces around Princes Street continues to be cut, with a general emphasis against on street parking which has seen continued reduction in the numbers of parking spaces around Princes Street. It is anticipated that the majority of on-street parking will be replaced by off-street parking (Lothian Regional Council, 1994c).
Rose Street has been pedestrianised, and the sidewalks along Princes Street widened. It was eventually decided to completely reshape the traffic flow of the region, and route all private east-bound traffic away from Princes Street and along Queen Street. This allowed even more significant widening of the northern sidewalks along Princes Street, although it can be argued that they are still insufficient to meet current pedestrian demand. The construction of pedestrian plazas at the junction of Princes and Castle Streets and Princes and Queensferry Streets reinforces both the need and the new willingness to ensure the landscape is adapted to meet the needs of its dominant users: pedestrians. This policy has given priority to pedestrians and buses along Princes Street, and was complemented by the removal of through traffic from George St.
The Old Town remains a significant public service centre, the focus of the city’s university, governmental and legal institutions (City of Edinburgh District Council, 1997: p. 37). While the source of many jobs, the vast majority are filled by commuters, and there are relatively high levels of local unemployment (Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal, 1990; Wajnikonis-Jack, 1987).
In the early 80s, the Old Town was clearly in decline, disfigured by vacancies and numbers of gap sites (City of Edinburgh District Council, 1997: p. 107). Only one department store remained in the region: the others had all closed within the previous five years, the result of competition from Princes Street, home to the remaining city centre department stores (and the St. James Centre in particular), combined with the near collapse of the local residential market. The construction of Cameron Toll in 1984 added to this decline, competing with shops in the South Side that had been too far from Princes Street and the Royal Mile to be affected by the more central changes.
The Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal was set up by the local Council in 1985 to improve the declining physical, social and economic conditions in the Old Town, which was becoming increasingly reliant upon the summer tourist trade (Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal, 1988). One of the principal objectives of the Committee was to stem the considerable population decline in the region, which by 1981 had reached its lowest recorded level, having dropped by a third in the preceding decade (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1980).
With the passage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Scotland Act in 1981, which removed the requirement to reimburse the Council for grants used in improving or converting property, effectively subsidising rehabilitation, the private redevelopment of housing stock in the region took off. As a result, between 1981 and 1987 the total amount of housing stock in the region increased by 50% (Wajnikonis-Jack, 1987: p. 15), and by a further 20% between 86 and 89 (Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal, 1990). During this time the vacancy rate for the region’s housing stock dropped by two thirds, from 25% to 8% between 1981 and 89. The percentage of housing stock owned by the Council in the region has halved, due to the combination of right to buy and considerable amounts of new construction/redevelopment, led by the region’s Housing Associations (Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal, 1990). This has resulted in the doubling of the local population of the Old Town to 6000 since the low of 3000 in 1981: the longer term goal is to double this again to approximately 10,000 (Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal, 1990).
With the beginnings of revitalisation in the Old Town, the Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal evolved from a catalyst of change to a co-ordinator of development (Edinburgh Old Town Committee for Conservation and Renewal, 1990: p. 3), and was subsequently merged with the Edinburgh Old Town Trust to form the Edinburgh Old Town Renewal Trust in 1991. The Trust would play a significant role in reshaping the Old Town, and the Royal Mile in particular, over the next decade as it disbursed significant funds that sparked the wholesale regeneration of much of the fabric of the Royal Mile and its environs.
The street was the backbone of these revitalisation efforts: buildings and closes develop from it, and are connected through it. By revitalising the street, it was believed the framework would be constructed for the wider economic revitalisation that followed. Revitalisation began with the comprehensive restoration of Cockburn Street and Victoria Street, where £8 million was spent to renovate and restore the frontage of sites, to refurbish shop-fronts (particularly through the construction of more ‘appropriate’ historic facades) and through streetscape improvements what included the relaying of cobblestones and the widening of sidewalks.
Similar efforts (at a cost of £11 million and rising) were begun to revitalise the South Bridge, although the results have been somewhat more patchy, as many businesses (particularly those on the west side of the street) have not participated in the redevelopment, despite the considerable subsidies on offer. Work in the South Side has focused primarily on the regeneration of residential neighbourhoods (City of Edinburgh District Council, 1993), with particular roles being played by the dominant institutions (particularly the University of Edinburgh and the Festival Theatre) in the region.
Considerable work has been done to improve the Royal Mile during the mid 90s, with particular investment in environmental improvements, including street furniture and the provision of tourist information. The long term plans advocate the complete pedestrianisation of much of the Royal Mile, particularly the area between the Lawnmarket and North Bridge. Street lighting has been upgraded, and all heavy traffic has been removed as part of a wider traffic calming plan that has included the construction of substantial new (wide) sidewalks between George IV Bridge and St. Mary’s Street, and the pedestrianisation of the area around Hunter Square. (Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise Ltd, 1994; Lothian Regional Council, 1994c). This work was expanded through the work of the Royal Mile Closes Initiative, which refurbished the 83 closes leading from the Royal Mile, providing lighting improvements, resurfacing, and repairing the building fabric where necessary (Edinburgh Old Town Renewal Trust, 1992). There has been additional emphasis on regeneration in the Cowgate, which lies just outside the St. Giles study region. It is expected that the construction of the Dynamic Earth, new hotels and the Scottish Parliament will have a substantial positive impact upon the Royal Mile and the Old Town.
As we have seen with the Old Town, visions of the street (and its uses) are central to the planning policies of Edinburgh today. Most significant perhaps is the willingness to invest substantial sums into the regeneration and revitalisation of existing street forms, to preserve the existing heritage and encourage local economic development. With the stated objective of preserving and reinforcing existing streetscapes, it is clear that the actions taken in the last decade have not only fundamentally reshaped Edinburgh, but have ensured the continued survival, if not prosperity, of the central core, in both the New and Old Towns (City of Edinburgh District Council, 1997).
Efforts to reshape the city continue, as part of broader government policy initiatives aimed at enhancing the attractiveness of the core, particularly against the threat posed by out of town developments (Scottish Office Development Department, 1996). The policies advocating improved shop-fronts, better access for pedestrians, and the development of a higher quality public realm are central to the city’s future plans to emphasise the uniqueness and ambience of the redeveloped centre (City of Edinburgh Council, 2000b). Through the Edinburgh Lighting Vision, landmarks throughout the city centre have been floodlit, particularly Calton Hill and dominant buildings along the Royal Mile.
Central to this redevelopment vision is the attraction of ‘significant’ brand name retailers, as apart of a putative scheme to transform George street into the ‘Bond Street’ of the North as part of a wider retail regeneration of the region, where many ex-office properties continue to be converted into retail and service uses (hotels, restaurants etc.) (City of Edinburgh District Council Economic Development Committee, 1998: p. 10). As part of this transition, much of the original Georgian appearance of George St. has been recovered through the removal of shop fronts and the restoration of building facades. (City of Edinburgh District Council, 1997: p. 12).
Coincident to the redevelopment of the urban fabric, there has been a greater emphasis upon safer city initiatives, with the provision of extra policing, CCTV and the development of the Clean Edinburgh 2000 programme to control litter and maintain the quality of the urban environment (City of Edinburgh District Council Economic Development Committee, 1998).
With the success of the removal of automobile traffic from the north carriageway along Princes Street, the Council now plans to remove it from south carriageway, removing cars completely from Princes Street (City of Edinburgh District Council Economic Development Committee, 1998; City of Edinburgh Council, 2000a). Given the similar success of pedestrianisation along the Royal Mile, it is anticipated that traffic may also be removed from between George IV Bridge and Cockburn St. (City of Edinburgh District Council Economic Development Committee, 1998).
The impact of the realisation of the importance of pedestrians by planners in the central areas cannot be underestimated. It is clear that the city cannot afford the space and the side-effects of continued automobile dominance. While Princes Street has long been recognised as a pedestrian centre, the recent actions to reduce traffic flows are considerably overdue, and have had significant positive environmental impacts upon the region. The medieval core of the Old Town is thoroughly unsuited to automobiles, and the conflict between pedestrian and automobile will continue to escalate, particularly on the fringes of the Royal Mile, unless there is even more widespread pedestrianisation. It is clear however, that while pedestrianisation is laudable, it is no replacement for the public transit system which is so necessary if the traffic problems facing the Old Town are to be resolved. Until then, the Old Town will continue to be blighted by commuter traffic.
Integral to this reshaping of the urban streetscape has been a particular vision of authenticity which has guided development and change in very explicit ways. Through the control of site uses to the reconstruction of shop frontages and the imposition of highly detailed restrictions on shop signage, the council is articulating a very particular faux-historical vision of the city. The emphasis upon removal of post-Georgian features, while perhaps understandable (e.g. in the cases of satellite dishes, non-Georgian fenestration) can be more broadly questioned by efforts to remove Victorian changes (City of Edinburgh District Council Planning Department, 1990).
The future of the centre of Edinburgh (which broadly covers the Princes Street study region and the Royal Mile segment of the St. Giles study region) has been one of the primary concerns of the local authority. While there is a now long established tradition of reinforcing the role of the centre of Edinburgh within the wider retail and urban hierarchy, there are competing forces, felt primarily through the threat of competition with other larger revitalising urban centres (primarily Glasgow and Newcastle/Gateshead) and through the perception that Edinburgh is unable to develop sufficient new retail spaces to absorb the ever-rising consuming potential of the local shopper.
It is felt that the threat to the central core posed by out of town developments, retail warehouses and superstores is relatively small, given the high convenience advantage the core has, its significant working population, the relatively low levels of car ownership in Edinburgh, the significant levels of spending brought into the core from the surrounding areas, through tourism, and through the numerous festivals and alternative cultural attractions the city has to offer. Other urban areas, however, provide markedly different forms of competition to Edinburgh.
With the increasing importance of spectacle and niche marketing, the city believes itself to be at a considerable competitive disadvantage with its rival urban competitors. The centre, while a World Heritage Site containing significant numbers of listed buildings within two important conservation areas, is highly constrained geographically, with few available avenues for growth. The core of the Princes Street region is bounded by the large private gardens north of Queen Street, while southwards development of Princes Street is constrained by legal restrictions on development. To the East, development is limited through the malevolent combination of the St. James Centre and the semi-abandoned Greenside complex which together straddle the western end of Leith Walk, with the additional impact of the derelict GPO building on the corner of Princes Street and North Bridge. Waverley Station acts as an effective barrier between Princes Street and the Royal Mile, for neither the Old Town nor the redeveloped Cockburn Street are connected via street retailing to Princes Street.
While the city core is simultaneously the centre of highly dynamic retail environment, it lacks the flexibility to respond to changes in the retail and real estate markets due to these overarching structural constraints, combined with the inevitable restrictions placed on redevelopment by the need to maintain conservation areas and the need for the preservation and ‘authentication’ of listed buildings. The constraints on development implicit in the heritage designations of the core and the physical constraints to expansion that surround it make it difficult to assemble larger sites within the core, where many sites are considerably smaller than many retailers would prefer. It is thus difficult to assemble the larger sites often demanded by retail tenants. The lack of local parking spaces, combined with increasingly pedestrian oriented planning policies, has resulted in continuing and effective restraints upon automobile access for shoppers.
While the Council recognises that opportunities for substantial retail developments are highly limited (City of Edinburgh District Council, 1997), this has not hindered the regular development of plans for substantial retail developments within the city centre over the last twenty years (cf. City of Edinburgh Council Planning Department, 1999). Recognising the constraints on development around the urban core, the council has repeatedly sought to assuage rising demand. It has reinforced the position of retailing in the city centre by minimising the penetration of service uses within the primary shopping areas, and has pushed for existing office uses in the First New Town, especially along George Street, to be converted into retail or other complimentary uses (pubs, restaurants etc.). It has repeatedly pushed for comprehensive redevelopment in Rose Street, in an attempt to move the retail focus north and away from Princes Street and towards George Street. On a more substantial scale, the Council has repeatedly pursued large retail redevelopment opportunities, from the construction of the Waverley Centre in the early 80s, to attempts to convert the North British Hotel into a department store, through to the expansion of the St. James Centre in the mid 90s.
It has long been recognised that, realistically, the redevelopment of the St. Andrews Square Bus Station provides the only practical site for any substantial new retail redevelopment in and around the core, with plans to include a Harvey Nichols department store and to construct additional retail links with the St. James Centre (City of Edinburgh District Council, 1997). More ambitious long-term plans aim to convert substantial portions of the Waverley Station into retail use, although plans to revitalise the area have been frustrated by the listing of the station and the need to preserve the existing city skyline (City of Edinburgh Council, 2000d).
Most controversial of all, especially given the council’s role as planner and investor, was the Princes Street Galleria (recently rejected after a public inquiry). This plan aimed to build an entirely new shopping street underneath the current Princes Street roadway, linking existing basement-level retailing along Princes Street through the new development with the Waverley Centre (City of Edinburgh Council, 2000b).
Many of these larger development proposals present significant threats to the city centre. While it is universally recognised that the core suffers from severe traffic congestion that cannot easily be resolved, adding substantial retail and office floor-space is bound to exacerbate existing problems. With the council simultaneously planning to remove all cars from Princes Street, it is hard to see exactly how the transport issues associated with redevelopment and large increases in retail floor-space will be satisfactorily resolved. The rather cavalier approach to Princes Street, in particular to the significant changes the Galleria development would have upon the character of the region, including the destruction of a significant portion of Princes Street Gardens, highlights what may be the irreconcilable tensions between the council’s role as advocate for development, and its role as maintainer of the city’s heritage.
In particular, further development within the already highly-concentrated core would have substantial impacts upon not only the surroundings of Princes Street itself, but also upon retailers and residents of the Old Town, which hardly needs either the increased traffic or the additional retail competition from an enhanced Princes Street. It is hard to see how such developments square with the council’s stated aims to protect the city as a World Heritage Site, to focus on the development of distinctive smaller shopping streets (Cockburn Street, High Street/Lawnmarket, and St. Mary’s Street in particular), and to emphasise the role and status of traditional street frontages as part of a wider policy concerned with the maintenance and preservation of Edinburgh’s streetscapes (City of Edinburgh District Council, 1997). It is questionable if the Council’s stated policy of consolidating and expanding Princes Street’s role as a focus for retail investment (City of Edinburgh District Council Economic Development Committee, 1998: p. 58) is in keeping with the Council’s commitments to the remainder of the city core, and in particular to their commitments (and investments) in the Royal Mile and surrounding areas of the Old Town.
Implicit within the planners’ view of the street and its role is a thorough rejection of many modernist urban ideals. Gone is the vision of the street as a traffic machine: in its place is the street as the locus of local experience, where the pedestrian is dominant, public transport a necessity for urban survival, and historic urban forms and legacies paramount in the shaping and reshaping of the urban experience. Visions of architecture ‘appropriate for the age’ have shifted radically: gone is the sleek ‘sign-free’ modernist architecture of the International Style, in its place idealised and/or faux vernacular forms. While there is an undoubted interest in postmodern architecture, the emphasis within Edinburgh is squarely on the preservation and reuse of ‘original’ buildings, specifically with very particular interpretations of ‘authentic’ uses, styles, roles and designs.
The differences between the particular urban visions of postmodernism and those articulated by planners are both marked and significant. While the visions of the planners are heavily grounded in the needs and experiences of specific places, shaped by the need to address political and social concerns, they also reflect particularly idealised visions of the city, one where everyone has equal access to goods and services, where the city begins to work as a cohesive, logical whole, where planning acts as the first line of resistance in the continuing conflict between attempts by capital to shape the city in its own image and the needs of the local communities. While this reification of the local can be seen as a postmodern perspective, it is also clear that the focuses of planners differ markedly from those of many postmodern academics. In particular, emphases upon the state of the city, how it will be allowed to change, and how it will be reshaped, are rather different from focuses upon spectacle and the theoretical issues surrounding conceptions of consumption and the role of the mall.
Most obvious is the difference between these conceptions of the street. While too much postmodern analysis focuses upon the street as an environment within which people act, consume and experience, the visions of the planner shape this environment and realise it in the form that the consumer/ flâneur experiences. The emphasis upon the street, and the experience of the streetscape, mark the gulf between planners and postmodern theory, between theorisers of consumption and the shapers of consumption. This emphasis upon changing the urban environment, upon reshaping it in very particular ways to achieve very particular goals is almost completely lost within the postmodern literature.
This is not, however, to say that this changing street is completely divorced or detached from postmodern visions of the city. Many conservation and architectural policies (listing in particular) rely heavily upon conceptions of authenticity (cf. Francaviglia, 1996). This is considerably expanded throughout the current planning framework for the study regions, with emphases upon appropriate uses (especially the conversion of eighteenth century housing from office/retail uses back to housing), appropriate design (through the adoption of detailed signage and shopfront policies and colour schemes) and the prioritising of the redevelopment or exposure of ‘authentic’ building frontages through the removal of Victorian and later additions, more rarely still through the process of facadism.
These policies are implemented through a framework that is explicit in its desire for control over the landscape, control that is necessary if official visions of authenticity are to be (simultaneously) imposed upon the street. Through specific and detailed manipulation of the street, local government seeks to define both appropriateness and authenticity: hence the control over both changing uses, where there is an assumption that retail uses are appropriate and authentic to particular environments, while other uses (services, foods etc.) may not be, or may need to be limited in number to preserve the authenticity of their surroundings.
Through the exercise of this control, specific senses of (historic) place are developed. In a highly modernist sense, this provides a sharp contrast between our experience of modernity and the ‘authentic’ landscape which contextualises this experience. This is perhaps one of the main aims of the process, for this tension between old and new heightens the urban experience (cf. Featherstone, 1992), and forms the basis for the wider place marketing strategies which have become integral to regeneration, tourism and leisure policies.
Questions of spectacle are also implicit in the planning process, although working at smaller and more subtle scales than is the case with much of the academic scrutiny: the focus is on the experience of streetscape and the pedestrian flâneur, through the use of lighting to reinterpret and reinforce the presence and role of landmarks, and through the development of international cultural festivals, rather than the mega-mall and the corporate festival city.
It is clear that the city is changing, and changing markedly. While it is clear that modernist visions of the city, focused on technology, the automobile and development have been fundamentally rejected, it cannot necessarily be assumed that postmodern visions of the city are now (pre)dominant. As was the case with the modernist city, there is a significant gap between the urban (and in particular the academic) visions of the postmodern city, and the planned visions that are being imposed by local bodies. In particular, the evidence from Edinburgh clearly indicates that while consumption is clearly one of the dominant forces that shapes the urban experience (Crewe and Lowe, 1995; Sack, 1992), it is clear that it is not the dominant force reinterpreting the present city: undoubtedly that role within Scotland falls to the (theoretically marginalised) planner.
