The Isle of Dogs: Four Development Waves, Five Planning Models, Twelve
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Progress in Planning 71 (2009) 87–151 www.elsevier.com/locate/pplann The Isle of Dogs: Four development waves, five planning models, twelve plans, thirty-five years, and a renaissance ... of sorts Matthew Carmona * The Bartlett School of Planning, UCL, 22 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom Abstract The story of the redevelopment of the Isle of Dogs in London’s Docklands is one that has only partially been told. Most professional and academic interest in the area ceased following the property crash of the early 1990s, when the demise of Olympia & York, developers of Canary Wharf, seemed to bear out many contemporary critiques. Yet the market bounced back, and so did Canary Wharf, with increasingly profound impacts on the rest of the Island. This paper takes an explicitly historical approach using contemporaneous professional critiques and more reflective academic accounts of the planning and development of the Isle of Dogs to examine whether we can now conclude that an urban renaissance has taken place in this part of London. An extensive review of the literature is supplemented with analysis of physical change on the ground and by analysis of the range of relevant plans and policy documents that have been produced to guide development over the 35-year period since the regeneration began. The paper asks: What forms of planning have we seen on the Island; what role has design played in these; what outcomes have resulted from these processes; and, as a result, have we yet seen an urban renaissance? # 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Isle of Dogs; Urban design; Planning; Urban renaissance Contents 1. Introduction . ....................................................................... 88 1.1. The whole story . ............................................................... 88 1.2. Key questions and approaches . ...................................................... 89 1.3. Styles of planning ............................................................... 89 2. Prelude—1973–1981 . ............................................................... 90 2.1. London Docklands Study Team ...................................................... 90 2.2. Docklands Joint Committee . ...................................................... 91 2.3. But no change on the ground. ...................................................... 93 2.4. State-led/plan-based .............................................................. 93 3. The first wave—1981–1985 . .......................................................... 94 3.1. The London Docklands Development Corporation . ...................................... 94 3.2. The Tower Hamlets’ plans.......................................................... 95 3.3. The Isle of Dogs Development and Design Guide . ...................................... 96 * Tel.: +44 20 7679 4876. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0305-9006/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2008.10.001 88 M. Carmona / Progress in Planning 71 (2009) 87–151 3.4. Early implementation ............................................................. 98 3.5. State-led/opportunity-based . ....................................................... 102 4. The second wave—1985–1991 . ....................................................... 102 4.1. Canary Wharf arrives ............................................................ 102 4.2. Canary Wharf master plan and coding . ............................................... 104 4.3. The wider context. ............................................................ 106 4.4. The Canary crashes . ............................................................ 109 4.5. Market-led/plan-based ............................................................ 110 5. The third wave—1991–2002 ............................................................ 110 5.1. The Canary rises again ........................................................... 110 5.2. The urban design matures . ....................................................... 111 5.3. The architecture develops . ....................................................... 113 5.4. The Isle of Dogs Development Framework . ........................................... 116 5.5. The LDDC withdraws............................................................ 116 5.6. The 1998 adopted plan ........................................................... 118 5.7. Market-led/opportunity-based....................................................... 119 6. The fourth wave—post-2002 ............................................................ 120 6.1. The London Plan . ............................................................ 120 6.2. Isle of Dogs Planning and Regeneration Framework ....................................... 121 6.3. Millennium Quarter Master Plan . ................................................... 122 6.4. Options and analysis for the Isle of Dogs . ........................................... 124 6.5. The Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan................................................... 127 6.6. Fourth wave development . ....................................................... 129 6.7. A network of private landscapes. ................................................... 134 6.8. The funding goes on. ............................................................ 137 6.9. Market—state/plan—opportunity balance . ........................................... 138 7. Conclusion ........................................................................ 139 7.1. Taking the long view ............................................................ 139 7.2. What forms of planning have we seen?. ............................................... 139 7.3. What role has design played in this? . ............................................... 141 7.4. What outcomes have resulted from these processes?....................................... 142 7.5. Have we seen an urban renaissance?. ............................................... 145 References ........................................................................ 148 1. Introduction another planning disaster and the inevitable end to an impossible dream. 1.1. The whole story Of course this is not the whole story. As the economy picked up, so did Canary Wharf, which has since The tale of London’s Docklands from the 1970s to bounced back with a vengeance. Today, the Isle of Dogs the property crash of the early 1990s—a tale of decline, even has a particular and special status in the London inertia, massive seemingly unplanned investment, Plan as an opportunity area that (alongside the City of followed by market failure—is one that has been told London) is seen as having a vital contribution to make to and retold in numerous essays, dissertations and learned enhancing London’s world city role (Mayor of London, papers, worldwide. Yet, despite the surfeit of work 2004: Policy 5C.1). Thus, the first adopted London Plan tracking the period up to the early 1990s, surprisingly contained proposals that the Isle of Dogs alone should little has been written about the area since, and house 150,000 new jobs and 3,500 new homes by 2016, particularly about how it has fared following the making in the process by far the largest contribution to property crash of the early 1990s, or indeed in the UK’s the planned growth of the capital of any location in post-1997 New Labour policy context. It seems that London, and contributing in no small part to the delivery after the crash, many simply lost interest in the area, of the plan’s overall growth strategy for London. In a writing it off alongside the liquidated remnants of very real sense, 15 years after the crash, it can be argued Olympia & York (the developers of Canary Wharf) as that the impossible dreams are being realised. M. Carmona / Progress in Planning 71 (2009) 87–151 89 1.2. Key questions and approaches last 30 years or so have made their mark on the Island. The paper therefore takes an explicitly historical Clearly, much development has occurred and approach, using contemporaneous professional cri- continues to occur following the property crash of tiques and more reflective academic accounts of the the early 1990s (and even the credit crunch today), as a planning and development of the Isle of Dogs. It count of the cranes that continue to dot the Docklands presents a ‘prelude’ (pre-LDDC) and four subsequent skyline will reveal (Fig. 1). But, in the post-97 language waves of development, which marked the transforma- of regeneration, can what has happened be described as tion of the Island over the quarter of a century since the an urban renaissance? To get a better understanding of LDDC was established. this, the paper will need to address the following key The review of the literature is supplemented with questions: analysis of the range of relevant plans and policy documents that have been produced to guide develop- 1. What forms of planning have we seen? ment over the period, and by analysis of physical 2. What role has design played in this? change on the ground. Each period is explored with 3. What outcomes have resulted from these processes? reference to the key planning documents produced to 4. Have we seen an urban renaissance? guide development, which, in turn, characterise particular styles of planning. By choosing the Isle of Dogs as the focus of this paper, no claim is made that the analysis applies to the 1.3. Styles of planning much larger Docklands area that formed the wider canvas for the work of London Docklands Development