Positively Influencing the Future of Midsummer Boulevard East to 2026.
A report on the Midsummmer Boulevard East stakeholder workshop - 7th, 8th and 10th February 2014.
Report on the Midsummer Boulevard East Stakeholder Design Workshops – 7th, 8th and 10th February 2014.
Executive Summary.
This executive summary reflects a focused and widely supported set of outcomes from the workshops held on the 7th, 8th and 10th February 2014.
The workshop was attended by 87 participants with diverse views and objectives for the development of Midsummer Boulevard East yet the results reflect a high degree of commonality and achieved very high levels of support.
The summary results of the workshop are listed below – details are given in the main text:
the specification of what makes a “good” place was agreed through the identification of 20 design and place qualities;
15 items of concern identified common to several stakeholder perspectives;
the identification of the 20 strengths, 26 weaknesses and 28 opportunities that the development of MBE needs to address;
25 barriers that have to be overcome to ensure that the MBE can be considered as a good place by 2026 were clearly identified;
8 initial proposal plans produced that contained 34 specific emerging ideas and led to the formulation of 18 draft design instructions to be addressed by a technical team;
The production by a technical team of a first draft composite package of proposals on plan, containing 10 key ideas;
High levels of support for the first draft composite package;
8 refined proposal plans containing 35 additional refinements to be addressed by a technical team;
1 The production by a technical team of a second draft composite package of proposals on plan, containing 12 key ideas;
Very high levels of support across the workshop for the second composite package;
The listing of 65 comments as suggested refinements to the second composite package that would increase the level of support of the package.
The generation of 12 draft refined aspirations based on the suggested refinements to the second composite package as the basis of an outline brief for the development of the Midsummer Boulevard of 2026.
2 Report Contents: Executive summary. Page 1 Purpose of the report. Page 5 Structure of the report. Page 6 Workshop participant’s details, aims, structure and format. Page 7 Day 1: Friday 7th February – Developing initial principles and proposals. Page 9 Day 2: Saturday 8th February – Refining the principles and proposals. Page 32 Day 3: Monday 10th February – Finalising principles, proposals & actions. Page 50 Concluding comments and recommendations. Page 65 Appendices. Page 66
List of Tables: Table 1.0 Participant’s details. Page 8 Table 2.0 Specification of the qualities that make a “good” place. Page 10 Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspectives. Page 13 Table 4.0 Composite SWOB analyses – STRENGTHS. Page 17 Table 5.0 Composite SWOB analyses – WEAKNESSES. Page 18 Table 6.0 Composite SWOB analyses – OPPORTUNITIESS. Page 20 Table 7.0 Composite SWOB analyses – BARRIERS. Page 21 Table 8.0 Technical Team Instructions from 7th February sessions. Page 27 Table 9.0 Emerging ideas extracted from the initial proposal plans. Page 29 Table 10.0 Other emerging issues from 7th February. Page 31 Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb. Page 38 Table 12.0 Additional refinements to the original proposals - 8th February. Page 48 Table 13.0 Additional refinements and specific comments on the second composite package - 10th February. Page 60
List of plans & diagrams: Figure 1.0 Group 1 first proposals diagram – 7th February. Page 23 Figure 2.0 Group 2 first proposals diagram – 7th February. Page 23 Figure 3.0 Group 3 first proposals diagram – 7th February. Page 24 Figure 4.0 Group 4 first proposals diagram – 7th February. Page 24 Figure 5.0 Group 5 first proposals diagram – 7th February. Page 25 Figure 6.0 Group 6 first proposals diagram – 7th February. Page 25 Figure 7.0 Group 7 first proposals diagram – 7th February. Page 26
3 Figure 8.0 Group 8 first proposals diagram – 7th February. Page 26 Figure 9.0 First composite plan – Midsummer Boulevard – synthesised and conceptualised. Page 34 Figure 10.0 Group 1 revised proposals plan – 8th February. Page 43 Figure 11.0 Group 2 revised proposals plan – 8th February. Page 44 Figure 12.0 Group 3 revised proposals plan – 8th February. Page 44 Figure 13.0 Group 4 revised proposals plan – 8th February. Page 45 Figure 14.0 Group 5 revised proposals plan – 8th February. Page 45 Figure 15.0 Group 6 revised proposals plan – 8th February. Page 46 Figure 16.0 Group 7 revised proposals plan – 8th February. Page 46 Figure 17.0 Group 8 revised proposals plan – 8th February. Page 47 Figure 18.0 Second composite plan for Midsummer Boulevard – a refined package of proposals . Page 53 Figure 19.0 Group 1 additional proposals plan – 10th February. Page 56 Figure 20.0 Group 2 additional proposals plan – 10th February. Page 56 Figure 21.0 Group 3 additional proposals plan – 10th February. Page 57 Figure 22.0 Group 4 additional proposals plan – 10th February. Page 58 Figure 23.0 Group 5 additional proposals plan – 10th February. Page 58 Figure 24.0 Group 6 additional proposals plan – 10th February. Page 58 Figure 25.0 Group 7 additional proposals plan – 10th February. Page 59 Figure 26.0 Group 8 additional proposals plan – 10th February. Page 59
4 Purpose of the report:
The purpose of this document is to present the results of the collaborative workshops held on 7th, 8th and 10th February 2014.
The purpose of the event was to establish the basis for the preparation of an outline brief for the future development of Midsummer Boulevard East, Central Milton Keynes.
The Midsummer Boulevard East development workshops were a collaborative process whereby invited stakeholders such as local and parish councillors, residents’ group representatives, local authority officers, consultants, business and property owners were actively involved in formulating design and development proposals for the area.
An objective of the process was to engage a broad range of local and national expertise in order to identify areas of agreement that could be used to enhance, support and direct proposals for future development and improvement.
An overall aim was to avoid a prescriptive approach to the production of an outline brief but rather to provide generic principles, ideas and proposals that could form the rationale to direct and support subsequent detailed proposals. These would form the basis for on-going discussions with the workshop attendees and other stakeholders.
This report reflects this approach and is presented as a chronological account of the developing design principles, ideas, proposals and key issues of concern raised during the three workshop sessions. Those facilitator’s comments that have been included are for reasons of either explanation and/or clarity.
Within the context of the aim and objectives of the process the consensual views of the participating groups have been included, which reflects the ethos of the process whereby a mix of stakeholders working together in groups was asked to share expertise and find common ground.
5
Inevitably there will be principles and issues that will be open for further reflected interpretation by individuals and individual organisation members. This should be perceived as a good thing as much work was produced over a short period of time and a degree of flexibility and interpretation guarantees the avoidance of a prescriptive approach and provides the scope for further negotiation.
Structure of the report:
The report is divided in to 5 sections.
1. Outline of the workshop structure and format - with participant’s details and group structure.
2. Workshop session 1: Developing initial principles and proposals - generated at the 7th February session.
3. Workshop session 2: Refining the principles and proposals – generated from the 8th February session.
4. Workshop session 3: Finalising principles, proposals and actions -– generated from the 10th February session.
5. Concluding comments and recommendations.
6 1. Workshop participant details, aims, structure and format.
1.1 Participant details.
87 participants took part in the workshop. The workshop ran over three sessions, facilitated by Dr Jon Cooper. Participants worked in eight groups constructed to ensure a mix of representation in each group. Table 1.0 lists the invited participants and organisations.
1.2 Workshop aims & objectives.
The aim of the workshop was to establish an agreed package of ideas, principles and proposals from a range of stakeholders that can inform the future use, layout and design of Midsummer Boulevard East (MBE) and development alongside it, within the context of the growth and intensification of development planned for Central Milton Keynes (CMK) by 2026
The overarching intention was to ensure that the 2026 MBE will make an enhanced positive contribution to the economic, social and environmental improvement of the Primary Shopping Area within CMK and that the MBE of 2026 will be considered to be a “good place”.
The first day concentrated on developing an initial set of general design aims and design principles to be applied to the development. This was achieved by:
1. Identifying the qualities that make a “good” place in the context of a city centre location like MBE;
2. Outlining important contextual material regarding the planning policy, physical, transport and user characteristics of MBE;
3. Understanding the perspectives of a range of stakeholders;
4. Carrying out a SWOB analysis of the area (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and barriers) and;
5. Illustrating a first set of design ideas on a 1:500 base plan.
7 Table 1.0 Participants’ details. Note: not all participants attended all sessions of the workshop. Organisation Representatives Organisation Representatives Abbeygate Clive Faine* MKC Cabinet Leader Cllr Andrew Geary Adelphi St Neighbourhood Watch Hilarie Bowman MKC Cabinet member Cllr David Hopkins* Age UK Milton Keynes Paul Griffiths MKC Cabinet member Cllr Peter Geary All Bradville Residents Assn Tony Peirson MKC Cabinet member Cllr Keith McLean Arriva Paul Morgan MKC Cabinet member Cllr Edith Bald Arriva Maq Alibhai MKC Cabinet member Cllr Alice Bramall Arriva Stuart Winston MKC Ward Councillor Cllr Cec Tallack* Arts & Heritage Alliance MK Jacky Scott MKC Ward Councillor Cllr Rob Middleton Australian Super Jack McGoogan MKC Ward Councillor Cllr Paul Williams* Bidwells Roger Yates MKC Ward Councillor Cllr John Bint Bray Associates Henry Diamond MKC Chief Executive David Hill Bray Associates Brian Nunan MKC Development Management Anna Holloway BT Pension Scheme Chris Darroch MKC Economic Development Pam Gosal City Discovery Centre Henk van Aswegen MKC Highways Brian Matthews CMK Alliance Robert de Grey* MKC Interim Asst Director, Planning David Hackforth CMK Alliance David Lock* MKC Passenger Transport Andrew Coleman CMK Alliance / CMK Town Council Cllr Rebecca Kurth* MKC Urban Design Grant Gibson CMK Alliance / CMK Town Council Cllr Ken Baker* MKC Urban Design Neil Sainsbury CMK Alliance / CMK Town Council Cllr Andy Thomas* MKC Urban Design Alex Hopkins CMK Town Council Cllr Charles Ashbury MKCCM Ian Jackson CMK Town Council Cllr Andre Brady MKCCM Melanie Beck David Lock Associates Matt Lappin MKCCM Sarah Bannister David Lock Associates Lawrence Revill MKCCM Carmel Blyth Great Linford Parish Council Cllr David Stabler MKDP Charles Macdonald Hammerson James Rowbotham MKDP Bob Hill Hammerson Adam Blacker MKDP John Duggan Hammerson James Hepburn Nat'l Market Traders Fed MK Elizabeth Hobbs Hammerson Phillipa Zieba Nat'l Market Traders Fed MK Georgina Baidoun Henderson Myles White Resident Douglas Campbell Henderson Chris Pyne Resident David Coles Hermes Ben Tollhurst Resident Stuart Turner Hermes Gavin Murray Resident Mike Leroy Intu Properties Brett Harbutt Stagecoach Tom Waterhouse Intu Properties Amy Scanlon Stagecoach Zoe Paget Intu Properties Mark Anders Sustrans Richard Manser Koru MK Kay Greenhalgh The Parks Trust David Foster* MK Forum Tim Skelton Theatre District Management Sara Mills MK Forum Carol Barac Theatre District Management Patrick Punch MK Gallery Will Cousins thecentre:mk Tenants Association James Waugh MK Gallery Jess Thompson Urban Eden Theo Chalmers MK Gallery Anthony Spira Urban Eden Ian Michie MK Bus Users Group (MKBUG) Peter Ballantyne Virtual Viewing Stewart Bailey* MK Bus Users Group (MKBUG) Alan Francis Xplain Adrian Morrow Xplain Linda Inoki* Facilitator Jon Cooper Logistics (CMK Town Council) Paul Cranfield* *member of CMK Alliance (Steering Group / Project Team)
8 On completion of day one tasks a technical team, working on behalf of the participants, examined the results of the workshop and produced a first draft composite plan that attempted to bring together the ideas generated by the participants in the first session.
The second day commenced with a presentation by the technical team of the first composite plan. This was followed by a viewing of two videos by Professor Jan Gehl as inspirational pieces designed to ensure that the participants addressed the experience of place as well as the functional attributes of the MBE area. On completion of the viewing the participants were invited to audit the composite plan and refine it in light of the videos and other additional issues that they considered important.
On completion of the second workshop session the technical team again worked to combine the ideas generated by the participants and produced a second refined version of the composite plan.
The third and final workshop session commenced with the participants presenting their ideas from the second session as a reminder and then they were shown the second composite plan and invited to check it for accuracy and to add further refinements. The participant groups were invited to indicate their level of support for the emerging plan and to identify any additional actions that would increase the level of support for the emerging plan within their group.
Throughout the workshop the participant groups were all asked to undertake the same tasks and on completion of the various tasks feedback sessions were held to clarify and identify points of common agreement – these points were recorded throughout the three workshop sessions and their presentation forms the bulk of this report.
9 2. Day One: Friday 7th February - Developing initial principles and proposals.
1. TASK 1: Devise the specification for a “good place”; 2. TASK 2: Receive important factual background and context material; 3. TASK 3: Examine and summarise the perspectives of key stakeholders; 4. TASK 4: Carry out a site visit; 5. TASK 5: Complete a SWOB analysis of the MBE area; 6. TASK 6: Illustrate and annotate initial proposals on a 1:500 base plan; 7. TASK 7: Prepare design instructions for the technical team; 8. TASK 8: List other emerging issues.
2.1 Devising a “good place” specification.
At the beginning of the first day the participants were asked to list the qualities that they considered made a “good” place. Table 2.0 lists the qualities in the order identified at the workshop – they are not presented in any order of preference.
Table 2.0 Specification of the qualities that make a ‘Good’ Place.
Understanding of climate – designed for climatic context.
A place to go and a place people want to be in.
It has reasons for people to go there.
Multiplicity of users.
Attractive, happening, vibrant and inspiring – a modern place with “delight”.
Inclusive – accessible for everyone.
Safe and comfortable.
Convenient and accessible – easy to get there.
Ambitious.
Clean.
Entertaining and diverse – something for everyone.
Not dominated by traffic.
10 Table 2.0 Specification of the qualities that make a ‘Good’ Place……continued.
Relates well to people.
Relates well to the natural world.
Vibrant - with a blend of activities.
Distinctive, memorable, easy to get there.
It has and is a unique selling point.
Timeless.
Inviting.
Complementary.
18 initial items were synthesized from the composite list generated at the 7th Feb event and two additional items (the last two) were suggested for inclusion in response to the discussions at the Feb 8th workshop.
“Inviting” was suggested at the workshop in response to the material shown on the videos by Jan Gehl.
“Complementary” was suggested for inclusion to ensure that the character and function of the MBE supported the wider CMK context.
Table 2.0 presents the participants with a specification that can be used to audit future proposals for the development of MBE to ensure that it can be considered to be a good place within the context of the wider city centre of Milton Keynes.
Facilitator’s observation.
To enable the proper use of table 2.0 as an auditing tool it is suggested that a series of indicators will need to be developed to assist the participants in measuring just how closely any future proposals deliver their good place specification. Essentially the good place specification constitutes a series of intentions or desired qualities. What needs to be identified is exactly how they are delivered in reality and how success can be made measurable. It may be possible for the technical team to identify indicators on behalf of the wider group of participants.
11 2.2 Essential information - background and context material.
The second session on February 7th consisted of a series of four short factual briefing presentations providing essential data on the planning policy, physical, access & movement and user context. Awareness of this information was considered essential in ensuring that the participants’ emerging ideas would be deliverable and responsive to the location.
The slides containing the background and contextual information shown at the event are presented in appendix A of this report.
2.3 Understanding the perspectives and aspirations of stakeholders.
To ensure that the workshop participants had an opportunity to communicate their perspectives on the MBE and to ensure that everyone could gain an appreciation of a wide range of other perspectives and views regarding the development of MBE within the time constraints of the workshop format, all the participants were invited to submit a short written statement summarising their perspectives in advance of the workshop. 18 perspective statements were received.
The 18 written statements were copied and each participant was presented with a complete set of written perspectives in the third session on February 7th.
Working in their groups the participants were invited to examine the various stakeholder perspectives. The groups were asked to read each perspective statement and:
a) List the key points of each perspective;
b) Identify points of agreement and also highlight potential disagreements;
c) Record their summary findings on the flip charts provided
On completion of the exercise the results were shared and areas of commonality and difference were identified.
12 The original 18 perspective statements are available in appendix B of this report. Table 3.0 below lists the areas of commonality found between the various stakeholders’ perspectives as identified by the participant groups.
Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspective statements (CSPs).
(G1-G8 the workshop groups).
CSP 1. MBE should be a destination.
Attracting more people to come and to dwell in MBE. G1. MBE needs to be improved as a destination. G5 MBE – regional destination. G6 MBE needs to become a destination. G8
CSP 2. Provision of a public or civic space(s).
Public civic space – yes/no/ where? G1 Civic/public square for mass gatherings, cultural/civic events venue. G2 Boulevard as the Square. G2 Space to socialise. G3 Town square – yes or no? G3 Public places. G6 Maybe a public square as a focal point. G8
CSP 3. MBE - a pedestrian dominated space.
Tension between different users – PT, pedestrians, cyclists, car, permeability. G1 Pedestrian priority. G2 Not pedestrainised totally – shared on terms. G2 Pedestrianise Lower 9th and 10th Streets – a possible consequence. G2 Alternative to cars – public transport mix but more pedestrian friendly. G6 Pedestrian connectivity. G6 Some pedestrianisation? G8 Pedestrian dominated? G8
CSP 6. Attract retail activity.
Indoor or Outdoor? G2 More flexible to attract retailers. G6
13 Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspective statements (CSPs)…..continued.
CSP 5. Retain, expand and improve the market.
Market as an asset – how and where? G1 Market – more variety and quality – Market Hall/Cover – management. G3 Market is important but needs to be improved. G5 Market is a strong anchor. G6 Enhanced market. G8
CSP 6. The MBE has different areas that need to be treated differently.
Linear overall space with a number of different ‘places’ and functions along its length. G1 West MBE is different from eastern MBE. G2 Linked spaces. G3 Degree of thought that MBE east of Secklow Gate needs to be treated differently from MBE west of Secklow Gate. G5 Two broadly different areas to MBE. G8
CSP 7. Improve public transport access. But how is public transport dealt with in MBE?
Role as a transport corridor – need for public transport access and interchange – how and where? G1. Move buses off. G2 High capacity public transport all through MBE from end to end. G2 Remove the MSP covenant for public transport. G2 Bus interchange on MBE or very close. G2 Circular service – Silbury/Avebury. G2 Buses – critical to have access. G3 Buses – too intrusive and need to be moved out. Majority support re-routing buses. G5 More public transport. G6 Relocate public transport to a location close to MBE. G8 Stark choice – either keep or remove. G8 Re-open the corridor thorough Midsummer place. G8
14 Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspective statements (CSPs)…..continued.
CSP 8. Provide better pedestrian and cycle access and linkage.
Better linkage between different uses. G1 More and safer cycle routes. G2 Pedestrian links. G3 North – south pedestrian access. G5 Lack of permeability. G8
CSP 9. Provide active edges to MBE.
Use and role of frontage development. G1 Needs more active frontages. G5. Need for active edges. G8
CSP 11. Provide easily accessible, more and better parking.
Disabled and elderly parking nearby. G2 More and better parking – multi-storey – relocated. G3 Needs some parking e.g. for disabled, but other parking could be moved to multi- storey car parks to allow space to be used for multi-functional purposes. G5 Better and easier disabled movement/parking. G8
CSP 12. Provide community and family facilities.
Community Hub near central interchange. G8
CSP 13. Increase vibrancy during the day and night.
Day and evening use. G2 Mixed uses. G2 Vibrant activity. G3 Night-time access. G3 Greater vibrancy needed. G5 Space to have evening attractions. G8
15 Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspective statements (CSPs)…..continued.
CSP 14. How to reconcile the past and the future?
Preservation vs Change? G1 Preservation vs Change? G3
CSP 15. How is the width of the boulevard to be addressed?
Width of the Boulevard – central thoroughfare between the trees – flexibility at the edges? G1 Narrow or integrate uses across - MBE narrow or not? G2
Examination of table 3.0 reveals 15 main themes that the participants identified as being common to a number of the stakeholder perspectives. 12 of the themes can be considered as common statements of aspiration for MBE, while 3 others are questions that require attention and clarification through further dialogue. The 15 items have been arranged below in two parts: firstly the 12 statements are listed; these are followed by the 3 questions:
MBE should be a destination. MBE should contain provision for a public or civic space(s). MBE - a Pedestrian dominated space. Attract retail activity. Retain, expand and improve the market. The MBE has different areas that need to be treated differently. Provide better pedestrian and cycle access and linkage. Provide active edges to MBE. Provide easily accessible, more and better parking. Provide community and family facilities. Increase vibrancy during the day and evening/night. Improve public transport access - but how is public transport dealt with in MBE? How to reconcile the past and the future?
16 How is the width of the boulevard to be addressed?
The above list provides an initial set of MBE specific aspirations held in common by a number of stakeholders, and combined with the earlier specification of a “Good Place”, it can form an embryonic brief for any future development team requested to address the design of MBE.
2.4 Evaluating the place – SWOB analysis.
To provide more detail to this emerging and embryonic brief the participants were asked to visit the MBE area after lunch on February 7th and, using the good place definition, context information, Stakeholder perspectives and their site observations as reference points, they were requested to carry out a SWOB (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Barriers) analysis of MBE to help decide specifically how MBE can be improved and to ensure that it could meet the common aspirations and be considered a “good place”.
Tables 4.0 to 7.0 list the items identified by the eight groups and constitute a composite SWOB analysis of MBE. The tables list the items in order of frequency of mention across the eight groups of participants.
Table 4.0 Composite SWOB analyses – STRENGTHS. (1-8 indicate the number of groups recording a similar item) S1. Presence of the market 6 S2. Central and accessible location – the heart of CMK 5 S3. Trees along the boulevard 4 S4. Car parking availability 4 S5. Availability of development land 4 S6. Theatre and gallery and leisure offer 3 S7. Mix of uses 3 S8. Strong retail offer and shopping centre 3 S9. Bus accessibility 2 S10. Portes Cochere 2 S11. Listed building character and appearance 2
17 Table 4.0 Composite SWOB analyses – STRENGTHS….continued. S12. Retail growth plans 1 S13. Multi-storey car park (short term parking) 1 S14. Disabled parking 1 S15. Pedestrian segregation 1 S16. Linear character – ‘grandiose’ 1 S17. Dual carriageway traffic capacity 1 S18. Flexibility 1 S19. Servicing accessibility 1 S20. High footfall at MSP 1
The participants identified 20 strengths within MBE that should be developed and enhanced in future design proposals. Five of the strengths were commonly identified by at least 50% of the workshop groups.
Table 5.0 Composite SWOB analyses – WEAKNESSES. (1-8 indicate the number of groups recording a similar item) W1. Maintenance, management and appearance of public realm 8 W2. Limited active frontages 6 W3. Decline in food centre and Theatre District – empty buildings and land 5 W4. Introverted shops 4 W5. Larger than human scale and sheer size 3 W6. Retail offer could be better 3 W7. Wayfinding is poor, esp. Midsummer Place 3 W8. Unattractive bus stops and passenger waiting areas 2 W9. Micro-climate and exposure lack of weather protection 2 W10. Poor quality of market environment 2 W11. Poor lighting of pedestrian routes and Secklow Gate underpass 2 W12. Lack of spatial cohesion 2 W13. Quality of north south pedestrian routes 2 W14. Cycle routes are poorly defined 1 W15. Market layout impedes pedestrian accessibility 1 W16. Retail units too small 1
18 Table 5.0 Composite SWOB analyses – WEAKNESES….continued. W17. Market opening days are limited 1 W18. Lack of independent retailers 1 W19. Confusing parking regime 1 W20. Traffic dominance 1 W21. Chaotic PT interchange 1 W22. Buses impact on pedestrian environment 1 W23. Space west of MSP lacks role and function 1 W24. End of Secklow Gate is very quiet 1 W25. Surface car parks 1 W26. Lack of events space 1
26 specific weakness were identified that need to be addressed in future proposals. All groups identified a lack of maintenance and the current appearance of the public realm as a major weakness. Two strong themes can be identified:
i) the poor personal experience of the place – words and phrases such as poor quality, unattractive, introverted, exposure, chaotic, lack of cohesion, poor definition, impeded access, confusion, – suggest that MBE currently seems to have a poor image due to its underlying structure. ii) lack of high quality facilities – retail units too small, decline in food centre, market opening limited, lack of role, etc. suggest that the functional aspect of MBE needs to be upgraded.
19 Table 6.0 Composite SWOB analyses – OPPORTUNITIES. (1-8 indicate the number of groups recording a similar item) O1. Development land and space is readily available 5 O2. Increase market days and improve quality 5 O3. Median space could be better utilised linking Campbell Park to market and programming the space 4 O4. Improve space west of MSP as a gateway to MBE 4 O5. Rationalise/ remove some surface parking if better use can be found 3 O6. Regeneration of food centre and Theatre District 3 O7. MSP public transport easement and covered space 3 O8. Establish two-sided streets and active edges 2 O9. Exploit Sunny side of shopping building and wide footways 2 O10. Accommodate cars in slow streets and shared spaces 2 O11. Extra wide pavements on north side of MBE could be used 1 O12. Book-end eastern end of MBE creating an ‘attractor’ 1 O13. Limited and substantial landownerships 1 O14. Space programming: more events 1 O15. Gallery extension 1 O16. Innovation and being different and unique 1 O17. Campbell Park 1 O18. Remove Secklow Gate ramps 1 O19. Enhance Secklow Gate environment 1 O20. Link portes cocheres and put activity there 1 O21. Remove clutter and signage 1 O22. Flexibility 1 O23. Increase evening activity 1 O24. Better public transport spine and interchange 1 O25. Extend shopping building east and link to Theatre District 1 O26. More active frontages and commercial activity 1 O27. Create a focal point 1 O28. Levels at eastern end of MBE are easier to accommodate 1 O27. Bus interchange in Secklow Gate including community hub 1 O28. Improve connectivity to Campbell Park 1
20 28 opportunities to improve the MBE experience were identified across the workshop, with 4 of them being common to at least 50% of the groups. These opportunities should be examined in detail and addressed as the basis for improvement in future proposals.
Table 7.0 Composite SWOB analyses – BARRIERS. (1-8 indicate the number of groups recording a similar item) B1. Secklow Gate is a physical barrier but north-south route is important 4 B2. Level changes 3 B3. Barriers to pedestrians: Market and shopping centre when closed 3 B4. Finance and funding 2 B5. Clutter 2 B6. Trees and planting are poorly sited 2 B7. Too much space and width 2 B8. Car parking as a barrier to pedestrians 2 B9. Uncertainty over public transport proposals 2 B10. Sleeping policemen and speed humps impede public transport 1 B11. Indirect bus routing and dog-leg around MSP 1 B12. Listed status of shopping centre 1 B13. Planning system (generally) 1 B14. Future management 1 B15. Inflexible shop tenant requirements 1 B16. Surface level car parking 1 B17. Power in a few hands 1 B18. Parking and charging regime 1 B19. Too many lanes of traffic 1 B20. Conflict between different users and modes of transport 1 B21. Speed limits on quieter roads 1 B22. ‘Grandiose’ 1 B23. Trees shouldn’t be removed 1 B24. Poor sight lines 1 B25. MK heritage and legacy – people wanting to retain the status quo 1
21 In terms of barriers to the improvement of MBE table 7.0 lists 25 items. They fall into three broad categories:
i) Physical barriers e.g. trees, poor sight lines, level changes etc.; ii) Management issues e.g. parking regime, tenancy requirements, indirect bus routing, conflict between modes of movement and users and; iii) Political issues e.g. the planning system, people wanting to retain the status quo, finance and funding, and uncertainty.
The listing of barriers to improving MBE highlights the participants’ views that the improvement of MBE is not just a physical issue but will also require political, economic and long-term management of the place to be addressed in any future development proposals.
The SWOB analysis provides future design and planning teams with a detailed evaluation of MBE based on local and expert knowledge. Any future development proposals should illustrate and make clear to the participants how these items have been addressed in any future proposals.
2.5 Creating the place – generating initial ideas and proposals.
On completion of the SWOB analysis the participants were invited to illustrate how they thought the MBE could be developed by annotating a 1:500 scale base map and using wooden blocks and other components to scale e.g. buses and people, to construct a 3D model to represent their group’s ideas. To ensure each plan was properly examined and that they could easily be compared the technical team undertook to convert the workshop plans into a series of representative diagrams. The diagrams are presented in Figures1.0 to 8.0.
22
Figure 1.0: Group 1 first proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
Figure 2.0: Group 2 first proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
23
Figure 3.0: Group 3 first proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
Figure 4.0: Group 4 first proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
24 Figure 5.0: Group 5 First proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
Figure 6.0: Group 6 First proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
25
Figure 7.0: Group 7 First proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
Figure 8.0: Group 8 First proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
26
On completion of the modelling exercise and as a catalyst for discussion (within the time constraints of the workshop format) one group was asked to present their design ideas to the other groups. Each group was then invited to outline how similar or different their proposals were to the first presenting group’s model and to give a short summary of their proposals. The groups were then asked to give the technical team two instructions that they felt were used to guide their model, and which they felt should be used to guide the future of Midsummer Boulevard East. Further additional instructions were then invited. The resultant set of design instructions are presented in table 8.0 in the order they were offered at the workshop - they are not presented in any order of preference.
Table 8.0 Technical Team Instructions from 7th February sessions. Group 1 Di1. Extend east end of shopping building with active edges and significantly enhanced kinks into Campbell Park. Di2. Introduce a new book-end building at Campbell Park end of MBE, with smaller attractions including a café and wedding chapel in the park to draw people through. Group 2 Di3. Create a beautiful promenade along the length of MBE with new paving, safe routes for pedestrians, and space for public events. Buses removed from MBE Di4. Shopping buildings expands over wide pavement area along the south side of the listed building and along northern side next to JLP but not onto parking. Surface parking on north side of MBE replaced in this location with high quality events space. Car parking in the south side of MBE retained. Group 3 Di5. Find new and beneficial uses on vacant land parcels to the south of MBE – could feature a culture zone, redevelopment of food centre for convenience/family uses, Point area could be a PT interchange with space for a tall landmark. Di6. If good active uses can be found investigate the sacrifice of surface car parking to the northern side of MBE adjoining the shopping building.
27 Table 8.0 Technical Team Instructions from 7th February sessions…..continued. Group 4 Di7. Retain and expand the market towards Crown Walk, Acorn Walk and into the underused premium parking bays either side of MBE at Secklow Gate. Di8. Enhance north south routes at Field, Eagle and Crown Walks. Establish a new walk – Margaret Powell Walk – to connect to the theatre. Maximise use of Portes Cocheres.
Group 5 Di9. Conventional buses removed from MBE to be replaced with a clean and safe system that can work within a pedestrian environment. Di10. Active frontages and a series of ‘rooms’ to be considered along MBE, strengthening cross-routes and avoiding fragmentation. Test also removal of part or all of Secklow Gate east-west ramps as part of the testing of the rooms scenario. One of the rooms should be a market. Group 6 Di11. Expand MSP down to Avebury Boulevard taking in the office buildings and removing buses from MBE. Di12. Move market to southern side of Secklow Gate. Group 7 Di13. Demolish the MSP Arch and de-clutter the listed shopping building turning it into a designer classic. Enlarge at basement level to increase retail floorspace. Di14. Introduce a shared surface along MBE to be used for a variety of activities with immaculate paving over which cars can still pass when required. Group 8 Di15. Western side of MBE to be closed to traffic with buses re-routed and a bus station off Secklow Gate. Di16 A 20 storey hotel and conference centre to the east of JLP with views over and deck to Campbell Park. Additional items Di17. Redway route to be extended east/west linking into the Redways at Saxon Gate. Di18. Retain Secklow Gate as an important north/south connection. Could be extended and turned into a more elegant structure flanked by development that would generate value.
28
The resultant 18 draft design instructions formed an initial technical team brief. The technical team examined the instructions and also completed an audit of the proposals shown in figures 1.0 to 8.0 to arrive at a composite list of specific proposals generated across all the groups.
The list of individual and specific proposals is shown in table 9.0 ranked in order by the number of groups that mentioned them. This ranking gives a simple indication of the level of commonality that was emerging at this point in the workshop in relation to some of the specific ideas and proposals.
Table 9.0 Emerging ideas extracted from the initial proposal plans. Initial Proposal Number of groups mentioning the initial proposal 1. Possibility of extending building lines on the North side. 6 2. Provision of multi-storey parking – NE and /or SW. 6 3. Buses diverted to Secklow Gate with an interchange. 6 4. Mixed-use development east of John Lewis – views over park. 5 5. Strong connections to Campbell Park. 5 6. Market retained and extended on the Boulevard. 5 7. North-south cycle and pedestrian connections 5 8. Book-end, landmark at the eastern end of the Boulevard 4 9. Possibly sever either or both ramps at Secklow Gate 4 10. Market Hall in Food Centre/D3.4 4 11. New pedestrian space at west end – west of Secklow gate. 4 12. A series of linked attractions to be located on the central median 3 - develop an Art walk along the Median. 13. Cycle route connections east and west. 3 14. Parking on south side – access on south. 3 15. Active edges to new development. 3 16. Car access from the south 2 17. A new landmark on the point. 2 18. Redevelop Point/D3.4 together. 2
29 Table 9.0 Emerging ideas extracted from the initial proposal plans….continued. 19. Extend the building lines on the South side. 2 20. Keep the trees 1 21. Midsummer Place roof removed. 1 22. Reinforcement of Portes Cocheres lines. 1 23. Fully pedestrianised and no buses. 1 24. Re-open Midsummer Place. 1 25. Open Midsummer Place to electric buses. 1 26. Needs clarity on uses for land on the south side. 1 27. Wedding chapel in Campbell Park. 1 28. Develop the eastern end as cultural zone. 1 29. Provide a western gateway to give a sense of arrival. 1 30. Pedestrian route through Midsummer place retained. 1 31. Remove the V8 underpass. 1 32. Western end to be car and bus free except for disabled access. 1 33. The centre of the boulevard to be used for advanced public 1 transport solutions. 34. Develop a series of linked “rooms” along the boulevard. 1
Table 9.0 lists 34 specific ideas for MBE, of which 11 were mentioned by at least half the groups. On completion of this “ideas audit” the technical team then worked to consolidate the ideas and place them on to a single base plan to construct a first draft composite scheme or “package” for review, comment and refinement by the participants on 8th February. The initial composite package is shown in figure 9.0. at section 3.2 of this report.
2.6 Listing other emerging issues.
In the final session on February 7th each group was asked to list other issues regarding the development of the MBE that were not covered on the day and that will require future attention. The composite list of issues is shown on table 10.0 in the order they were received at the workshop – they are not in order of precedence although they are grouped by topic.
30 Table 10.0. Other emerging Issues – from 7th February. 1. Political Leadership and Administration Oi1.1 Political will and Leadership for public acceptance and Business acceptance and long-term commitment/consistency Oi1.2. Imagination and Vision Oi1.3. Mechanism for collaboration between landowners Oi1.4. External sensitivities and PR – dealing with the sacred cows! 2. Planning Oi2.1. Long-term strategy and spatial plan for Public Transport and Parking Oi2.2. Planning certainty – length of the planning process 3. Development and Development Constraints Oi3.1. Flexible, sustainable, adaptable design and building materials Oi3.2. Impact on the Listed Building and constraints on development. Oi3.3. Phasing Oi3.4. Cost and viability Oi3.5. Sustainable Development standards Oi3.6. Understanding constraints imposed by essential infrastructure Oi3.7. Need for, role and function of an iconic landmark Oi3.8. Control of the height and scale of buildings 4. Property Market and Demand Oi4.1. Extent of mixed use – is residential really acceptable here (probably not!) Oi4.2. Commercial user and occupier demand for new space 5. The Public Realm Oi5.1. Who cares for, safeguards and “programmes the public space and finding resources to change the quality - animation and curating Oi5.2. Longevity and future proofing like the original CMK design Oi5.3. How to manage the market to raise its game 6. Connections Oi6.1. Future of Lower 9th Street Oi6.2. 24 hour North South route(s) across the city centre. Oi6.3. The Midsummer Place Covenant – to go or to stay? 7. Environment Oi7.1 Sunlight penetration to public space
The issues shown on table 10.0 fall into 6 broad categories in terms of questions raised and possible impacts that will need to be addressed:
31 i) The need for political leadership and administration;
ii) The need for long term certainty in the planning process;
iii) Awareness of physical, management and financial aspects to the development process and development constraints;
iv) Understanding and imaginative demand to property and market demand;
v) The long term maintenance, management and improvement in the quality of the public realm;
vi) The improvement and clarification of connections in to and through MBE;
vii) Recognition of the environmental aspects and impacts of design and the impact they have on the experience of public spaces.
As with the barriers to development shown on table 7.0 the list of other issues highlights the need for any future proposals to be cognisant of the political, financial and long tern management needs of MBE.
32 3. Day Two: Saturday 8th February - Refining the principles and proposals – making sure that we deal with the experience of place.
TASK 1: receive the first draft composite plan for comment and checking and get clarification on the emerging first draft composite package for MBE prepared on behalf of the workshop by the technical team;
TASK 2: To view two inspirational videos and to use those pieces as the basis for further refinement of the emerging proposals;
TASK 3: To further refine the emerging composite plan and give an indication of the level of support within each group for the emerging proposals.
3.1 Workshop management.
At the start of the event on February 8th the facilitator addressed the workshop in regard to an issue of process management and protocol. This short section is included simply as a point of accuracy and as a record of the refinement and management of the workshop process. It had been brought to the facilitator’s attention that some members of the various groups felt that their voice was not being heard and that the group was being dominated by a single assertive character or opinion. The facilitator made this situation known to the workshop and requested that: i) those more assertive individuals “take a step back and allow others to speak”; ii) that the tech team members in each group did not write on the flip charts; iii) that two people within each group take responsibility for making sure that everyone had a chance to speak and; iv) that if problems persisted the facilitator was informed and would then make an intervention.
3.2 Presentation of the first draft composite package.
In the first session the technical team presented their first attempt at producing a composite package of proposals from the models produced on February 7th. The first composite plan is shown in figure 9.0 below.
33
34 The first draft composite plan represents diagramatically a package of ten consolidated suggestions:
1. Midsummer Place - reconceived.
2. West of Secklow Gate – de-cluttered, removal of ramps, new carpet.
3. East of Secklow Gate - sculpture walk, ramps retained and vehicles by invitation only.
4. Market enriched and diversified and extended east-west.
5. Market Hall Options.
6. Porte Cochere crossings intensively used connecting multi-storey car parks and Midsummer Mall
7. A Midsummer Boulevard transit route
8. Secklow Bus Interchange, left, right and centre.
9. Sunnyside Extended
10. Midsummer Palaces
The presentation of the first draft composite package received a spontaneous round of applause from the workshop participants. A short question and answer session followed where some of the emerging ideas were outlined in a little more detail.
At this point the participants were requested to hold onto any further questions as they would be provided with a print-out of the emerging composite diagram and would then be given the opportunity to examine it in detail within their groups and to make further observation, requests, refinements and amendments.
35 3.3 Dealing with the experience of place.
Prior to auditing the emerging first composite package the participants were asked to watch two videos by Professor Jan Gehl and then attempt to use some of the concepts and ideas shown to audit the emerging proposals and add further refinements as a means of starting to produce a second composite package to be shown on Monday 10th February.
The first video can be found at the link below and dealt with the idea of changing mind sets in relation to transforming public spaces into places for people and realising very high levels of ambition in transforming the public realm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lid9ELzzT8Y
The second video can be found at the following link and deals with the more detailed aspects of place design attempting to ensure that the link between the physical characteristics of the built environment and the individual human experience of places is more clearly understood. The extract is only six minutes long and is taken from a one hour long film entitled “Cities for People” by Lars Mortensen. http://mortensenfilm.dk/documentary/cities-for-people
3.4 Scoring the initial composite package.
After watching the video presentations each group was asked to carry out a detailed audit of the emerging composite proposals in relation to their ideas from day 1, the other emerging issues and the place experience presentation.
The groups were asked to score the emerging proposals by indicating the numbers of people within each group that supported or did not support the emerging proposals and identify improvements in the form of new principles and/or specific spatial proposals. The cumulative results of the audit are shown both on table 11.0 and in figures 10.0 to 17.0.
36 A number of the items (2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 on table 11.0) were felt by some groups to contain a number of sub-clauses that made their final tallies of numbers supporting/not supporting etc. more nuanced – these subdivisions are shown in table 11.0.
In addition to the specific items listed on the table four more general points can be identified from Table 11.0:
Most of the proposals shown on the composite plan (figure 9.0) received support from a majority of the participants;
A number of items were felt to be too vague to be supported in anything other than principle – reconceiving Midsummer Place, extending the market, locating the Midsummer palaces (landmarks).
A number of people abstained from offering a view or recorded a “maybe” as they felt that they needed more information on which to base their decision.
A specific item that caused a large number of participants to abstain was the potential removal of the existing ramps. The removal of the connecting Midsummer Boulevard with Secklow Gate was part of the composite proposal but it was generally considered by the participants that insufficient information was available to enable any specific decision to be made at this point. Moreover it was felt that any decision regarding the removal or retention of any or all of the East or West facing ramps needed much more specific information regarding the possible impact on the market, impact on connectivity, and visual impact, and that technical issues also required detailed investigation e.g. structural feasibility. At this point the removal of the ramps was not agreed/supported by the workshop.
Table 11.0 provides any future design team with a list of potential actions that received general support but also a list of items that require further investigation in order to confirm the participant’s support.
37 Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb.
Disagree/Don't Proposal Agree/Support Maybe/Abstain CONDITIONS support Generally agreed in principle but what does the 1. Midsummer phrase actually mean? Clarification needed on Place - 65 3 0 detail. Retain thoroughfares. More discussion and reconceived. investigation needed regarding the retention of the roof. 2. West of Secklow This item was seen by several groups as containing Gate – de- too many individual clauses to enable an accurate cluttered, removal 36 6 0 indication of support as a single item - see items of ramps, new 2a, 2b and 2c. carpet.
2a De-cluttering 33 0 1
38 Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb ….continued.
A decision regarding the removal or retention of any or all of the East/West facing ramps needs It was generally considered that insufficient information was 2b Removal of much more information regarding the possible available to enable any specific decision to be made on this Ramps impact on the market, impact on connectivity and item at this point. visual impact. Technical issues also require investigation e.g. structure.
2c New Carpet 10 0 0 Clarity required on detail. 3. East of Secklow Gate - sculpture walk, ramps 41 9 1 Support in principle but further information needed. retained/removed and vehicles by invitation only. 3a Sculpture walk 10 0 0 A decision regarding the removal or retention of any or all of the East/West facing ramps needs It was generally considered that insufficient information was 3b Ramps much more information regarding the possible available to enable any specific decision to be made on the retained/removed impact on the market, impact on connectivity and item at this point. visual impact. Technical issues also require investigation e.g. structure.
39 Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb ….continued. 3c Vehicles 2 8 0 invitation only 4. Market enriched and diversified and More investigation required to allow any detailed 52 3 3 extended east- decision on the specific location. west. 4a Market More investigation required to allow any detailed enriched and 10 0 0 decision on the specific location. diversified. 4b Market More investigation required to allow any detailed 2 8 0 extended E and W decision on the specific location. 5. Market Hall 58 1 3 More discussion needed on specific location. Options. 6. Porte Cochere crossings intensively used 46 5 3 Reinstate crossings through the area. connecting MSCP and Midsummer Mall
6a Porte Cochere 16 0 0 Currently poor quality.
40 Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb ….continued. 6b Multi-storey 15 1 0 parking More detail needed on the specific location and 7. Midsummer layout. Some people felt it should be on MBE Boulevard transit 51 16 1 others that it could run around adjacent roads. In all route cases any solution should be convenient and accessible by disabled users. 8. Secklow Bus More detail needed on specific design and specific Interchange, left, 67 0 1 locations right and centre. This phrase was felt to be vague. More detailed 9. Sunnyside 47 8 2 description needed. More specific location data Extended needed. 9a Sunny Side 5 3 0 9b North side 4 4 0
The idea of providing landmarks was generally accepted but further definition is required to decide 10. Midsummer 42 5 4 if this refers buildings or spaces or both and to Palaces address, scale, height, massing etc,
41 Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb ….continued. 10a Location East 10 0 0 More specific location data needed. and West Youth congregate at the point. Where will they go? 10b Location at the 10 8 0 This issue needs further investigation in order for a Point decision to be reached. Totals 632 79 19
42 3.5 Further refinement of the emerging proposals
On completion of the audit of the first composite package and the indication of levels of support, the groups were asked to place a sheet of traccing paper over a diagram of their original plan and were invited to refine their proposals further to provide a second set of plans to be audited by the technical team as the basis for the production of a second composite package for presentation on February 10th. The resultant refined proposal diagrams are shown in figures 10.0 to 17.0 below.
Figure 10. Group 1 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
43 Figure 11. Group 2 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
Figure 12. Group 3 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
44 Figure 13. Group 4 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
Figure 14. Group 5 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
45 Figure 15. Group 6 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
Figure 16. Group 7 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
46 Figure 17. Group 8 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
At the end of the session held on February 8th each group was asked to outline briefly their additional refinements to their earlier models, shown in diagram form in figures 1.0 to 8.0 above, as a means of drawing the technical team’s attention to the items that the groups wanted to be addressed in the second iteration of the emerging composite package.
Table 12.0 summarises the additional variations and features proposed by the eight groups.
47 Table 12.0 Additional refinements to the original proposals - 8th Feb.
Group 1 1. Working with existing circulation routes. 2. Preserve the trees as the symbol of a sustainable urban showcase. 3. Human Scale. 4. Slow speed limit. 5. Iconic building on the V8 Bridge. 6. Make provision for young people. 7. Exemplar for renewable energy. 8. Development symmetry/consistency each side of Secklow Gate south. 9. Public space for people use.
Group 2 10. The median of the MBE as social space between commercial worlds. 11. Design as distinctive rooms. 12. Give some public space in return for getting some public space upgrades. 13. A social enterprise company or trust needs to be set up to run the [MBE as a] venue. Group 3 14. Taxi access. 15. Disabled parking spaces are critical. 16. Traffic access from Avebury Boulevard. 17. Take away the northern ramps only (possibly). 18. Pedestrian route over Secklow Gate. 19. Bike hire provision to be provided. 20. Midsummer place should have or be a public civic landmark. Group 4 21. Culture/leisure spine on Lower 12th Street. 22. Facilities needed for young people. Group 5 23. Programming the spaces to complement adjoining uses. 24. Develop the eastern end as cultural/leisure zone. 25. Preserve the central corridor but allow it to change over time to accommodate flexible transit solutions e.g. Trams etc.
48
Table 12.0 Additional refinements to the original proposals - 8th Feb….continued. Group 6 26. Maintain a transit route. 27. Mixed-use development in the southwest quadrant of the city centre. 28. Establish a Business Development District. Group 7 29. University on the Food Centre/D3.4. 30. 5 Storeys maximum height. 31. MBE should be the “largest intimate space in the world”. 32. Green structure should extend into the boulevard. 33. Use trees to alter the microclimate. Group 8 34. Midsummer Winter Garden – cover the whole boulevard with large “sails” or canopies [to ensure year round use]. 35. Close Midsummer Arcade and relocate the retail frontage to the boulevard.
The technical team took the diagrams shown as figures 10.0 to 17.0 and examined them in detail in an attempt to consolidate the evolving ideas and construct a second composite plan that represented the core commonalities emerging between the groups. The second composite package was presented for examination in the second part of the session held on February 10th.
49 4. Day Three: Monday 10th February - Finalising principles, proposals and actions - ensuring that the future MBE is a good place.
TASK 1: short presentation and verification by each group of their emerging proposals from day 2 as summarised by the tech team;
TASK 2: The technical team present a second composite summary of the principles, proposals and actions generated in day 2 back to the workshop for verification of accuracy and acceptability;
TASK 3: Each group examines in detail the composite proposals refined by the technical team and decides the degree to which they support the proposals and list additional changes that would increase the group’s support.
4.1 Lancing the boils.
At the start of the event on February 10th the facilitator again addressed the workshop in regard to process management and protocol.
It had again been brought to the facilitator’s attention that some members of the various groups still felt that their voice was not being heard and that the group was being dominated by a single assertive character or opinion.
Other participants were concerned that some items had been “agreed” as representing a workshop consensus and that is was inaccurate.
Several participants were concerned that they had not been given sufficient time to make important decisions and that they did not have sufficient information on which to base their decisions.
The facilitator made the above views known to the workshop and made the following points:
Listening and taking notice. i) Everyone at the workshop had an equal right to be heard; ii) the more assertive individuals should again “take a step back and allow others to speak”; iii) the tech team
50 members in each group should not write on the flip charts; iv) two people within each group, including the tech team member, take responsibility for making sure that everyone had a chance to speak and; v) if problems persisted the facilitator was informed and would then make an intervention.
. Time compression – this is not the end. It was pointed out that this workshop constituted the very start of an on-going consultation process. Rebecca Kurth stated that it was intended to reconvene the workshop group to maintain and ensure their further input and direction.
. No fixed decisions at present. At this point in the workshop process none of the proposals made by any groups or individuals represented fixed decisions made by the workshop participants although areas of commonality were emerging.
. Conditions are recorded and will be reported. Any conditions attached to indications of support for the emerging proposals would be recorded and reported – including the need for more information and investigation.
. Ramps – no decision can be made – impacts not known. In relation to the specific issue of the existing ramps on MBE/Secklow Gate, it was reiterated that at the end of the first workshop day (Feb7th) it was agreed that no decision could be made regarding the possible removal of the ramps as insufficient information was available in regard to the possible impacts of their removal on the market, visual character and circulation and that position had not changed.
. Extending building lines – no decisions on where, how or under what conditions. Regarding the draft proposal to possibly extend the existing building lines, again no specific decisions had been made by the workshop participants at this point.
The facilitator then rephrased the aim of the workshop and specifically the aim of the third workshop event of February 10th. The rephrased aim of the workshop was/is: “To produce an outline brief for further work”.
51 Facilitator’s comment:
A short discussion took place around these issues and a participant reminded the workshop that the issue of trust was paramount in the event being successful and in addressing issues that had been causes of confrontation in the past. This formed a good point at which to recommence the workshop process.
At this point the participants were given a copy of a summary analysis of a recent public exhibition that had received 277 comments from people in the Centre MK listing what they liked, didn’t like and would like to see in MBE. Summary details of this analysis can be seen in appendix C.
4.2 Presentation by the groups and listing of new ideas from the Feb 8th diagrams.
As a reminder to the workshop each group presented their proposals produced at the Feb 8th event on screen to the whole workshop group. The proposals are shown in Figures 10.0 to 17.0 and table 12.0 above.
4.3 Presentation of the second composite package by the technical team and indications of support by the groups.
The technical team presented the second composite plan as a refined package of proposals that it felt represented the features common to most groups’ refined proposals - see figure 18 below.
52 53 12 key features are shown on the second composite plan:
Existing circulation routes to be 24 hour (wherever practical); New possible building line extensions; 5 outdoor rooms were illustrated running from west to east: . Midsummer Place; . An urban public space; . The extended market; . Garden public space; . Cultural public space. A Transit route maintained down the centre of the boulevard A high quality public promenade. Public transport interchange; Mixed-use development to the southern side of the MBE.
A short question and answer session took place where opportunity for clarification was provided.
After the presentation the groups were presented with print outs of the plan and invited to audit the proposal and indicate their level of support for the package of proposals.
Table 12.0 shows the levels of support for the illustrated package as indicated verbally by each of the eight groups.
54 Table 12.0 Levels of support indicated by each group for the second composite package.
Group 1 = Very High. 100% support, but conditional.
Group 2 = Very High.
Group 3 = Very High – conditional on the transit route supporting advanced public transit solutions. Overall score of 9/10
Group 4 = 8/10, Very High. Overall score of 8/10
Group 5 = Very, Very High.
Group 6 = Very High. An overall score of 8/10, which would be higher if some of the unknowns could be overcome.
Group 7 = Very High.
Group 8 = Very High.
Overall the second composite package received very high levels of support from all the workshop groups.
4.4. How to increase levels of support.
In addition to indicating their general level of support the participants were given tracing paper sheets and asked to record their suggestions for additional measures that would increase the level of support within the group plus any additional amendments, comments and refinements for this workshop. These comments, where provided, are shown on figures 19.0 to 26.0 and on Table 13.0 below.
55 Figure 19. Group 1 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
Figure 20. Group 2 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
56 Figure 21. Group 3 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
Figure 22. Group 4 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
57 Figure 23. Group 5 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
Figure 24. Group 6 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
58 Figure 25. Group 7 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
Figure 26. Group 8 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
59 Table 13.0 presents a summary of the additional comments and suggestions provided by the groups.
Table 13.0 Additional refinements and specific comments on the second composite package 10th February - suggestions to increase levels of support within the groups. (G1 to G8 = workshop group) 1. Retain, expand and improve the Market. A bigger market zone is required with better visibility and provision for a market hall. G3 The market should be extended east and west, and with additional weather protection. G4 The market feels like a barrier at present even though there are routes through. G6 The market needs a larger zone as its area of consideration so that improvement and expansion can be planned, including a market hall in the mix. G6 The market requires strong north-south pedestrian routes if possible on the ground and across Secklow Gate Bridge. It also needs good and clear east-west routes on the ground. G7
2. Provide parking in several locations and in several forms. The development east of John Lewis with an MSCP. 100% support G2 A MSCP at the east end as part of a development with other uses and access from the V8 Marlborough Street. 100% support G3 There should be a MSCP at the east end. G4 Development of a car park east of John Lewis should include cultural uses. G5 It is essential to maintain the overall supply of parking during implementation. G7 There is currently a poor arrangement and distribution of disabled parking and this should be improved. G7 There should be access to any new MSCP at the east end direct from V8 Marlborough Street. G7 3. Create a series of Landmarks and gateways. A west end gateway required. 100% support G2 There should be a landmark on the Point site. G3 There should be a west end gateway treatment. G3 The arrival point at the west end of the boulevard is neglected. G4 Landmarks are needed at both ends of MSBE. G6 The west end needs a sense of arrival at the heart of the city centre. G6 The east end needs a wider cultural offer to create a bigger draw with a landmark feature. G6 We need to concentrate cultural uses. G6 There needs to be some form of landmark on the axis to Campbell Park. G7 4. Carefully extend the building lines both on the north and south sides in specific locations. Any building extensions need to have regard to heritage, design and the impact on the quality of the public realm. G1 Support for new building lines and extensions on the north side, but why not also on the south side of the boulevard. G2
60 Table 13.0…..continued. The John Lewis flanks development was agreed but no general agreement for new building lines elsewhere, especially if permanent. G3 There should be residential development at the east end. G4 Building lines should be also extended on the south side where this improves the definition and enclosure of the “rooms”. Development around the Portes Cocheres could reduce the apparent width of the boulevards. G4 On expansion of the Centre:MK, this team believes in “articulation” – not a consistent building line. The extensions of the John Lewis flanks could come forward of the existing building line. All should be in keeping with the existing architectural style. G4 Mixed use south of the boulevard could include health care. G5 Expansion of the Centre:MK had a difference of view on whether and how it should be done. G5 In the zone around John Lewis, buildings should come forward on the flanks at least as far as the existing building line. Elsewhere the preference is for any new buildings to be separated in space to retain the continuous façade. There was some disagreement on this issue. G7 Building line extended on both sides of MBE. G8 5. Create a series of interlinked and themed outdoor rooms along the length of the Boulevard. The idea of “rooms” is great but the design and programming must be carefully considered. G1 “Rooms” agreed by most in the group (8.5/10). They need to be related to the uses in the buildings. G3 Really like the concept of “rooms”! G4 The concept of rooms was agreed. 100% support G5 Agree with character rooms approach. G8 6. Support the vibrancy of the Boulevard with a managed programme of events. The arts and heritage community are happy and willing to help programming and business modelling for a programme of events. G1 The programme of uses and events needed. G6 The programme of uses and events for the “rooms” should be used to drive the form and design of the spaces. G7 7. Maintain but improve the existing circulation and movement network both north- south and east-west. There should be three north-south routes that are available 24/7 G2 There should be cycle hire facilities in the boulevard. G3 There was full support for the continued use of the existing circulation routes. 100% support G3 North-south routes are critical and at least one route at Secklow Gate should be 24/7. G4 The use of existing circulation routes should include at least one 24/7 north-south route. 100% support G5 North\south routes to be 24/7. G8 Maintain movement system. G8
61 Table 13.0…..continued. 8. Provide a “beautiful” public transport interchange at Secklow gate. The bus interchange should be bigger and on both sides of Secklow Gate. G3 A question was raised whether a bus interchange was needed at all, and if it was, could it be on the high level bridge on Secklow Gate. G5 CMK demands “the most beautiful bus interchange in the world”! G7 Why not have bus pick up/drop off points on both sides of Secklow gate? G8 9. Ensure that development provides active edges to all public space along the length of MBE. Critical to make the edges of the boulevard active. G1 The mixed use development sites south of the boulevard and each side of Secklow Gate should have active frontages all round. G3 Needs active use on both sides. G8 10. Transform MBE in to a high quality public promenade. The promenade needs to be able to draw people along the whole boulevard. G1 The promenade was agreed by all. 100% support G3 The idea of a public promenade was agreed. 100% support G5 High quality promenade. G8 11. Provide a transit route along MBE for advanced public transport solutions. The transit should be high-tech. G1 Support for the transit route. 60% support G2 The transit route was agreed by all (not internal combustion engines). 100% support. G3 The main boulevard should be a shared space used by the transit route. 100% support G5 Range of public transport options and personal uses G8
Towards the end of this session of the workshop there was a specific discussion in relation to the potential pedestrianisation of MBE. The general conclusion on the accessibility of the Boulevard was that:
MBE will be a pedestrian dominated place, it will contain a transit route available for advanced public transport solutions, have some parking provision (especially for disabled users) and have shared access that varies over time with other vehicles there by invitation only.
(Facilitator’s comment: it is suggested that this item is appended as an additional item 12 to table 13.0).
Indicating the exact locations and positioning of these features was deemed to be impossible at this stage in the design process and at the scale and presentation format of the current composite proposal plans.
62 In conclusion, the second composite package was generally supported by the workshop and should now be refined and expanded to contain the following 12 draft refined aspirations (DRAs) synthesised from the composite plans and the items listed in table 13.0 and that reflect the participants’ additional proposals for Midsummer Boulevard East, some of which were contained in the first composite plan, as the basis for an initial outline development brief for MBE.
These DRAs have been paraphrased here by the facilitator on behalf of the workshop and so are presented in italics.
DRA1. Retain, expand and improve the Market.
DRA2. Provide parking (particularly for users with disabilities) in several locations and in several forms - ground level and multi-storey.
DRA3. Create a series of landmarks and gateways at the western and eastern end of MBE.
DRA4. Carefully extend the building lines both on the north and south sides in specific locations.
DRA5. Create a series of interlinked and themed outdoor rooms along the length of the Boulevard.
DRA6. Support the vibrancy of the Boulevard with a managed programme of events.
DRA8. Provide a “beautiful” public transport interchange at Secklow gate.
DRA9. Ensure that development provides active edges to all public space along the length of MBE.
DRA10. Transform MBE in to a high quality public promenade.
DRA11. Provide a transit route along MBE for advanced public transport solutions.
DRA12. MBE will be a pedestrian dominated place with shared access that varies over time with vehicles there by invitation only.
These draft refined aspirations should now be combined with the second composite package to produce a third composite plan showing a more specific spatial distribution of features. Numerous specific proposals made by
63 the participants that support the delivery of these aspirations can be found in tables 8.0, 9.0, 12, and 13.0 above and can be used to provide more detail to the third plan and provide a comprehensive outline brief that reflects the participants common aspirations for the MBE of 2026.
64 5.0 Concluding comments and recommendations.
5.1 Conclusions.
Although the workshop was attended by a range of participants with diverse views and objectives for the development of Midsummer Boulevard East the outcomes in terms of desired qualities, design principles and strategic proposals were narrow and well focused with a high degree of commonality and support.
This was achieved through a collaborative process that has led to clear guidance for the creation of an outline design and development brief for Midsummer Boulevard East.
The summary results of the workshop are listed below – details can be found above in the main text:
the specification of what makes a “good” place agreed through the identification of 20 design and place qualities;
15 items of concern identified common to several stakeholder perspectives;
the identification of the 20 strengths, 26 weaknesses and 28 opportunities that the development of MBE needs to address;
25 barriers that have to be overcome to ensure that the MBE can be considered as a good place by 2026 were clearly identified;
8 initial proposal plans produced that contained 34 specific emerging ideas and led to the formulation of 18 draft design instructions to be addressed by a technical team;
The production by a technical team of a first draft composite package of proposals on plan, containing 10 key ideas;
High levels of support for the first draft composite package;
65 8 refined proposal plans containing 35 additional refinements to the original draft composite package of proposals to be addressed by a technical team;
The production by a technical team of a second draft composite package of proposals on plan, containing 13 key ideas;
Very high levels of support across the workshop for the second composite package;
The listing of 65 comments as suggested refinements to the second composite package that would increase the level of support of the package.
The generation of 12 draft refined aspirations based on the suggested refinement to the second composite package as the basis of an outline brief for the development of Midsummer Boulevard.
The workshop results should be used as a design rationale against which further consideration can be given to specific proposals for the development of Midsummer Boulevard East and against which the planning authority stakeholders and community can verify subsequent detail proposals.
The workshops raised key emerging issues that require further consideration in terms of policy, finance, maintenance and design implementation. These are likely to affect the way in which the development at Midsummer Boulevard East occurs. Many of these are beyond the scope of this report but should be considered during the formulation of any outline brief and subsequent design and development framework.
66
5.1 Facilitator’s recommendations.
Finally, in relation to observations made by the facilitator during the workshops and during the formulation of this report there are eight key recommendations;
Indicators for the specification of a good place should be identified and agreed in order to audit proposals; An outline development brief for the improvement of Midsummer Boulevard to satisfy the growth of development planned to be achieved by 2026 should be formulated from the results of the workshop; There should be a very clear, transparent and auditable link between the outline brief and the results of this workshop; The issues of political support, public and private sector partnerships and long term maintenance must be addressed as part of any long-term development package; Several additional exciting ideas that were mentioned at the workshops by individuals or single groups are worth remembering and pursuing further: . The functions of MBE should be complementary to the surrounding Milton Keynes central area; . Canopies over MBE – these could be used to reinforce the legibility; memorability and usability of outdoor rooms; . The establishment of a Business Improvement District; . MBE as an exemplar of renewable energy; . The concept of “give some to get some” in terms of public space only being given up for building extensions in return for investment in improving the public realm; . The setting up of a community trust;
67 . Ensuring a long term and very regular arts/events programme along MBE with a suitable events business model; . The Bus Company is willing to move the location of stops in response to the new and ambitious proposals; . Concern that listed buildings are properly addressed.
the client(s) should consider how the momentum of the collaborative workshops can inform a more comprehensive strategy for on-going consultation and public participation.
the client should identify mechanisms for demonstrating to the general public how the results of this workshop will inform subsequent design;
a strong recommendation that all participants at the workshops be issued with a copy of the final report.
Dr Jon Cooper.
February 2014.
68
Appendix A. Essential information – background and context material.
69
Slide 1 Planning policy context
Slide 2 NPPF Presumption in favour of sustainable development. • Three dimensions to sustainable development: ‐ economic, social and environmental roles, working together. Key areas: • Ensuring the vitality of town centres • Promoting sustainable transport • Requiring good design • Promoting healthy communities
Slide 3 Milton Keynes Core Strategy, 2013
Primary Shopping Area (PSA) in CMK identified as a regional shopping centre… • higher quality buildings and spaces around them with greater attention to human scale • range of travel options • more pedestrian friendly routes and spaces • Improved integration between parts of CMK • Identifies targets for new housing, office and retail development up to 2026.
70 Slide 4 CMK Development Framework, 2013
Six areas of guidance: • Protection of public realm infrastructure • Heritage assets and public art • Design guidance for new and redeveloped buildings • Access, movement & parking • Key public spaces • Land use and character areas Midsummer Boulevard East should be seen as a key public space in terms of the pedestrian experience.
Slide 5 Planning policy context
Slide 6 CMK Business Neighbourhood Plan
The Plan seeks... • Delivery of the Core Strategy targets for development • Flexibility of land uses; promotes mixed use • Improvements to public realm • Retention & improvement of public spaces • Diversification of the PSA – independent shops; covered market hall; expansion of cultural and community facilities • Identifies Midsummer Boulevard East as an inset area for further design work
71 Slide 7 CMK Business Neighbourhood Plan
Access, Transport and Parking Strategy: • Good provision for cars remains a competitive advantage for CMK, whilst encouraging a switch to walking, cycling and public transport eg interchange in retail core & CMK shuttle • Protect the CMK ‘classic’ infrastructure • Enhance the pedestrian experience with active ground floor frontages • Protect existing movement corridors • Improve safe, convenient and attractive access for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.
Slide 8
Physical
Slide 9 Area of Study
72 Slide 10 Physical Size of MBE
Slide 11 Physical Size of MBE
Similar scale in two dimensions Slide 12 Champs Elysees, Paris Global city icon. Traffic and people
73 Densest pedestrian flows in Europe Slide 13 Stroget, Copenhagen The Street as the heart of the city
Quality landscape and management Slide 14 Canary Wharf, London A procession of linked spaces
Shared space, open access for all Slide 15 Exhibition Road, London Cafes, museums, parking and traffic
74 Slide 16 Market Squares at Nottingham and Newark
Slide 17
Slide 18
75 Slide 19
Gentler level changes opposite the Point Gentler level changes opposite the Point
Gentler level changes for a short distance Gentler level changes for a short distance opposite the Theatre opposite the Theatre
Slide 20
Ramps up to Secklow Gate Ramps up to Secklow Gate
Secklow Gate viewed from in front of Food Centre Retaining wall in front of Food Centre
Slide 21 Sections Through Secklow Gate Bridge
76 Slide 22 Levels Across MBE
Slide 23
Slide 24
77 Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27 MBE Tree Plan
78 Slide 28 Connectivity of CMK Street Network
Slide 29 Existing Footpath Connections to Midsummer Boulevard East
Slide 30 Parking
Between 10:00 – 16:00 Premium Parking around Centre MK
High of 97% Saturday Dec 2013
Low of 66% Sunday June 2013
79 Slide 31
Slide 32
Access & Movement Context
Brian Matthews, MKC Highways Andrew Thomas, CMK Town Council
32
Slide 33 CMK Growth Expectations Core Strategy & CMK Alliance Plan
Today 2026 Increase Dwellings 2,000 7,000 5,000 Residents 3,000 10,000 – 14,000 7,000 – 10,000 Students 200 2,000 ‐ 5,000 2,000 – 5,000 Jobs (workers)/day 30,000 45,000 ‐ 50,000 15,000 ‐ 25,000 Visitors/day 100,000 130,000 ‐150,000 30,000 – 50,000
80 Slide 34 Potential Areas of Growth in CMK CMK Alliance Plan A B C D E F G H
1 400 2,0001,500 700 2 6,500* 30,000 400 4,000 new workers 800 3 900 1,700 500 300 4 600 5,000 2,000 600 600 1,500 >30,000 more visitors 10,000 new workers 4,000 new retail jobs * Includes Network Rail
New office‐jobs New retail jobs University students & staff
toward end of plan New visitors (per day) period (excluding new dwellings)
Slide 35 Implications of Growth: Challenges for Access & Movement
• How will workers & visitors travel to CMK and within CMK ? Challenges for: – Parking spaces – Highways & junctions – Public transport (e.g. bus; rail; other) – Social Inclusion – Cycling/walking • Spatial implications – Space for wider roads and/or junctions (for more cars & buses) – Space for pavements (for more pedestrians) – Number & spacing of bus stops (for more buses) – Routing of buses (for more buses)
Slide 36 Traffic Queues 2009
36
81 Slide 37 Traffic Queues 2026
37
Slide 38 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW T H H OW DO W ORKERST RAVEL INTO CMK?
‘MODAL SPLIT’
Modal Split • 2001 7% by bus; 77% by car • 2011 10% by bus; 75% by car • 2026 ?? 38
Slide 39 Implications of Growth How do Workers Travel Into CMK?
2026 2026 2001 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
45,000
40,000
35,000 Modal Split: 30,000 All Other 25,000 Walk/Cycle 20,000 Bus 15,000 Car (Driver) Car (Passenger) 10,000
5,000
‐ 10% by Bus 10% by Bus 25% by Bus 25,000 workers 50,000 workers 50,000 workers 39
82 Slide 40 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW T H FOR PARKING N UMBER OF PARKING SPA C ES I N CMK
25,000
Additional parking by 2026 (through expected development) • Office blocks = 3,000 – 4,000 • Retail blocks = 1,500 ‐ 2,000 • Total parking spaces in CMK in 2026 ‐> 30,000 – 35,000 40 * Excludes residential parking
Slide 41 Implications of Growth for Parking Visitors & Dwell Time
• 100,000 visitors /day require how many parking spaces? • The answer depends on: – Proportion using cars versus bus/other means – Average number of passengers per car – “Dwell time” (time spent shopping or visiting) • Example: – 100,000 visitors between 10am –4pm, 90% by car, 2 passengers per car and… • dwell time of 1 hour => 7,500 parking spaces • dwell time increases to 2 hours => 15,000 parking spaces
Increasing dwell time increases demand for parking spaces 41
Slide 42 Implications of Growth for Highways Limited Highway Capacity
• Grid roads surrounding CMK, together with distributor roads within CMK, were designed to support a city centre of 28,500 jobs
• The capacity of grid road junctions can only be increased by 25% through interventions such as adding an additional carriageway, widening roundabouts or adding part‐time signals 42
83 Slide 43 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW T H FO R H IGHWAYS CONSTRAINTS OF EXISTING ROAD LAYOUT
43
Slide 44 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW T H FO R BUSES BUS ROUTES & BUS STOPS IN CMK
The Point (area 3) • Today –10 bus stops; 100 buses per hour • 2026 (Scenario 1) –20 bus stops; 200 buses per hour needed? • 2026 (Scenario 2) –? bus stops; 500 buses per hour needed? 44
Slide 45 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW T H FO R BUSES BUS ROUTES & BUS STOPS IN CMK
Accessibility Considerations • 400m bus stop catchments is considered the desirable spacing • Current pattern of stops means that the whole of CMK is with 400m of one of the 5 groups of stops. 45
84 Slide 46 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW T H FO R BUSES BUS INTERCHANGEAT SECKLOW GAT E
Replacing the The Point and Food Centre stop groups with one location at Secklow Gate/Avebury Blvd gives 400m stop catchments as shown above ‐ this shows that the proposal reduces accessibility to CMK overall, especially to the area shown in pink which includes Civic Offices and the Library. NB: does not consider alternative bus routes or shuttle bus 46
Slide 47 Public Transport Improvements?
Current bus, at peak times carries about 30 people Car occupancy in MK is about 1.16 per vehicle 1 bus carries equivalent to 26 cars
Transport Policy Section - Milton Keynes 05/03/2014 Council
Slide 48 Improved Public Transport?
New buses can carry up to 83 car loads! 6 per hour potentially removes 500 cars
Transport Policy Section - Milton Keynes 05/03/2014 Council
85 Slide 49 On‐Demand Services –via smaller vehicles
49
Slide 50 Use of Autonomous Pods within CMK?
50
Slide 51 Implications of Growth: Challenges for Access & Movement
SUMMARY • Significant growth planned for CMK (regional city centre) • Implications for how workers & visitors travel to CMK and within CMK – Parking spaces – Highways & junctions – Public transport (e.g. bus; rail; other) – Social Inclusion – Cycling/walking
• Spatial implications for CMK and Midsummer Blvd East (MBE) – Space for wider roads and/or junctions (for more cars & buses) ? – Space for pavements (for more pedestrians) ? – Number & spacing of bus stops (for more buses) ? – Routing of buses (for more buses) ? – Other public transport options ?
86 Slide 52
Visitor Context
Lawrence Revill, David Lock Associates
Slide 53 Other major shopping centres much Milton Keynes Catchment lower - Bluewater (8%), Trafford • 6th most affluent in UK • Catchment population (Source CACI 2012) Centre (5%), Meadowhall (13%) – 3.2m population – 532,707 within the core catchment • City centre provides 19% of retail provision within the primary area (Source Javelin 2011) • Population under 34 almost 1/3 higher than UK benchmark (Source Javelin 2011) • Comparison Goods potential of £1bn increasing to £2bn when catering and leisure added (Source CACI2012)
Slide 54 Centre:MK Standing
• Centre:MK ranks 17th as a retail centre nationally (Source CACI 2012) • Ranks 2nd in the region (Source CACI 2012) • High visitor frequency (Source CACI 2012) • Centre:MK is 77% of CMK retail floorspace (Source Javelin 2011)
87 Slide 55 Age and Affluence within a 61‐90 min drivetime
Slide 56 Centre:MK Visitors
• 27 million visits per annum • 55% people arrive by car • Average age is 38 • Average 74 visits per year per visitor (very high) (Source CACI 2012) • For every meal in the evening, there are 3.5 at lunchtime
Slide 57 Busy‐ness
Q2 2013
88 Slide 58 MK Gallery Visitors
• Circa 20,000 per annum (18,055 visitors 2011/12) – Modern Art Oxford – 95,000 – Nottingham Contemporary – 237,000 • 120,000 (est) potential visitors within the 30 min drive catchment
Slide 59
Slide 60 MK Theatre Visitors
• Circa 350,000 per annum • Circa 320 shows • 50% MK postcodes….. • …..rest within 45 min drive time
89
Appendix B. Stakeholder perspective papers.
90
INTU – Perspectives & Aspirations
101
Hermes Five Principles
1. There is a sense of collective ownership of Central Milton Keynes and Centre:MK and an active interest in the future development of the city centre. We are keen to work with the Council and stakeholders to unlock the potential for long-term, sustainable investment for the future; 2. Our vision is for the city centre to be a regional destination that integrates a diverse range of experiences which collectively act as a more powerful draw than they do individually, but without losing the unique character of Central Milton Keynes. We want to create more reasons for people to come to, and remain in, the city centre with a richness of leisure and cultural experiences and an improved retail offer. We believe this should involve the more effective integration of the core retail area (Centre:MK and Midsummer Place) with the MK Gallery, the Theatre, the Theatre District, Xscape and a variety of places to eat and drink. Midsummer Boulevard could be a lynchpin in this vision by becoming the “glue” between the various land uses. This would include the Food Centre which occupies an important central position on the Boulevard and needs a sustainable and commercially viable solution for the future; 3. Public transport and cars are important for accessibility but should be complimented by a visible volume of footfall exploring the city centre. The Boulevard could become a vibrant heart to the city centre if it provides for both elements but acts as less of a barrier which divides the buildings and their activities. Customer feedback informs us that car parking is one of the biggest single issues in CMK in terms of way-finding, availability of spaces and the charging regime, hence we believe that a more sustainable solution is required; 4. We wish to attract a broader range of retailers from value operators to premium brands to Centre:MK in order to improve Milton Keynes’ retail offer. This is widely accepted in principle but has been difficult to resolve in detail, principally due to the changing demands of occupiers. Therefore flexibility is required to accommodate current and future demand of the retail and leisure markets to ensure that the city centre remains the focus for retail and leisure activity; 5. The market is also an important part of CMK’s overall retail offer and we want to see it improved so that it can become a stronger anchor as well as a successful incubator for new retail businesses.
98
110
Appendix C. Public Exhibition: Summary of Comments.
NOTE: The following tables and analyses include all comments received in response to the public exhibition on 31 January and 1 February.
Please note that these tables are an updated version of the papers distributed at the Workshop – this is because an additional 20-25 responses submitted to the Council after the exhibition have now been included and the tables have been re-formatted to present the data more clearly.
111 MBE Public Exhibition: Analysis of Comments Question 1: Question 2: Questions 3: Topic/Theme Total Like Don't Like Improvements Market 15 6 20 41 Design 16 8 16 40 Public transport 7 4 19 30 Shopping experience 6 5 12 23 The Point 6 9 4 19 Public square 1 2 12 15 Access 6 5 4 15 Young people 2 2 10 14 Midsummer Place 1 10 3 14 (Atrium) Pedestrian experience 3 3 6 12 Parking 2 4 6 12 Food Centre 1 5 4 10 Maintenance 2 4 2 8 Cycling 0 4 3 7 Leisure experience 1 1 2 4 Campbell Park 1 1 1 3 Signage 0 0 3 3 Misc 0 0 3 3 Safe 2 0 0 2 Theatre District 0 2 0 2 Total 72 75 130 277
112 Public Exhibition: Summary of Comments* Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look and think works well about don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be MBE today? improved)? Market 15 positive comments 6 negative comments 20 comments 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.14, 1.15, 2.29, 2.9, 2.34, 2.37, 4.3, 4.7 3.14, 3.16, 3.18, 3.2, 3.21, 3.29, 3.33, 3.43, 3.48, (41 comments) 1.16, 1.18, 1.20, 1.28, 1.30, 3.5, 3.54, 3.56, 3.8, 3.64, 3.65, 3.66, 4.2, 4.5, 4.6, 1.32, 1.39, 1.42, 1.48, unattractive, looks tired and grubby, 4.20 diversity, variety, good dated, depressing dark environment under Preserve and enhance market, improve location, valuable resource bridge, should be moved appearance, better lighting, bigger market and covered/indoor, investment needed and public toilets, modernise it, add antique/crafts markets, need good permanent stalls and fish market, mini‐market stalls in MSP; night market Design 16 positive comments 8 negative comments 16 comments 1.16, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.22, 2.21, 2.30, 2.32, 2.36, 2.38, 2.12, 2.3, 3.61 3.13, 3.14, 3.23, 3.33, 3.34, 3.46, 3.58, 3.61, 3.62, (40 comments) 1.29, 1.33, 1.35, 1.40, 1.41, 3.64, 3.65, 4.2, 4.7, 4.13, 4.21, 4.23 1.43, 1.45, 1.47, 1.50, 3.45, fairly ugly, not visually appealling area, more evergreen trees/shrubs ‐ MBE looks great in 3.66 exposed, disjointed, no public seating, too summer but bleak in winter, more landscaping spacious, open, light, trees, much road space, large spaces between and less busy, replace dead Oak tree with another keep 'as is' buildings with roads and parking in tree, more floral displays, more seating, more between, no public toilets esp eastern end, indoor seating, small park for lunch time eaters, not much landscaping (greenery/flowers); CMK needs a central garden, more art and area should not be a 'barricade' one side sculptures, better leisure (informal and of the city centre from another, especially commercial), MBE needs to be developed as a after closing time whole, overarching vision ‐ not piecemeal development, improve vibrancy with shops opening doors onto MBE again, more enticing shop windows; convert boulevard to park area
113 Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look and think works well about don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be MBE today? improved)? Public 7 positive comments 4 negative comments 19 comments transport 1.15, 1.17, 1.26, 1.29, 1.31, 2.14, 2.18, 2.29, 2.31 3.10, 3.62, 3.14, 3.15, 3.17, 3.19, 3.24, 3.38, 3.39, 1.36, 1.45 3.41, 3.52, 3.56, 3.8, 3.64, 3.65, 3.66, 4.1, 4.11, (30 comments) public transport stops at MSP ‐ put No7 4.23 bus stops nearby (but not bus through it straight line, bus route a bus interchange with facilities ‐ not terrible bus easy to find right one), no ridiculous not being able to travel in shelters at Food Centre end, open up MSP for cars hindering buses straight line, bus access should be lower electric buses, better facilities needed for bus speed, don't like bus interchange users, bus station where it will be warm and dry, with shops, toilets, RTPI, etc; need a tramway, need dedicated transport service from train station to Coachway, make sure bus areas work for disabled people; suspended monorail Shopping 6 positive comments 5 negative comments 12 comments experience 1.4, 1.23, 1.25, 1.38, 1.8, 4.7 1.37, 1.49, 2.6, 2.8, 2.20 3.65, 3.1, 3.11, 3.2, 3.37, 3.44, 3.46, 3.54, 3.57, easy to find shops, nice very bored to see same shops, chain 3.66, 4.5, 4.6 (23 comments) variety/range of shops stores, need more variety, nothing special same old food chains ‐ more interesting food here, providers and specialist shops instead, need to subsidise the rent and service charge so local shops and young people can earn a living, more specialist shops ‐ deli's, farmer's market, arts and crafts, more boutique and individual stores subsidised by larger stores, set‐up units for charities on a rotational basis, another department store/Primark but not at expense of market/Secklow Gate; 24‐hr shopping centre; play music whilst shopping
114 Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look and think works well about don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be MBE today? improved)? The Point 6 positive comments 9 negative comments 4 comments 1.12, 4.2, 4.4, 4.19, 3.66, 2.11, 2.14, 2.21, 2.22, 2.25, 2.29, 2.7, 3.21, 3.53, 3.55, 3.64, 4.14 (19 comments) 3.62, 4.5, the Point is looking tired ‐ it's iconic but can we it's iconic, keep it; retain as has become an eyesore, needs a make‐ make it look better, improve the Point, retain at one of the few icons in MK; over, has been left to deteriorate, worn & least the profile; give us an iconic building to it's a landmark; retain and tired, blow it up replace the Point restore it and re‐open it for a new use Public square 1 positive comment 2 negative comments 12 comments 1.21 2.12, 3.65 3.9, 3.12, 3.23, 3.59, 3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.63, 3.66, (15 responses) 4.19,4.20, 4.25 Middleton Hall is great civic already have city square near M&S (but a city square would be good as long as it has space not allowed to use it as public meeting trees, shrubs, flowers and water feature, street place); we already have a disproportionate entertainers and vendors, choirs, dancers, bands, number of apparent 'undesirables' near buskers, gymnasts; maybe some more communal McDonalds so why expand the area? areas with more cover for weather, like idea of square; no single commercial interest should be allowed to dictate use of public square; need truly public space for leafletting, petitioning, etc ‐ valuable civic freedoms Access 6 positive comments 5 negative comments 4 comments 1.41, 1.1, 1.3, 1.19, 3.66, 4.2 2.1, 2.24, 2.7, 2.8, 2.29 3.63, 3.42, 3.23, 4.13 (15 comments) easy road access, keep Need drop‐off point for car users to pick‐up kids Secklow Bridge open Don't like west end being cut off to etc; retain segregated carriageways and trees but vehicles, don't like lack of a right turn onto narrow to just accommodate public transport and MBE from Secklow, serious mistake to pedestrians, relocate market so Secklow Bridge block off MBE, don't like traffic can close, east‐west traffic light timings have very 115 Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look and think works well about don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be MBE today? improved)? brief timings; better roads
Young people 2 positive comments 2 negative comments 10 comments 1.15, 1.29 2.18, 4.6 3.12, 3.22, 3,25, 3.3, 3.31, 3.6, 3.6, 3.35. 1.8, 1.13, (14 comments) Need seating area for young people to hang out, child friendly, good places for don't like congregation of youngsters areas for children to play like Willen Lake; a young people to get together around McDonalds; no skateboarders ‐ put skatepark and somewhere where people can sit near McDonalds & MSP skateboard park in Campbell Park not city and watch the skateboarders; youth club; centre university to breathe life into the area; add fun stuff for kids 0‐12, make a 360 play area for kids Midsummer 1 positive comment 10 negative comments 3 comments Place (Atrium) 1.24, 2.12, 2.13, 2.2, 2.25, 2.26, 2.28, 2.8, 2.32, 3.36, 3.5, 4.5 2.33, 2.36, (14 comments) Lovely & spacious, useful for windy, rainy gap between shopping areas, doors or more shelter would be useful, get lunchbreaks in summer too cold in MSP, it's a icebox, we just rush heating; don't mind if fill in with shops through, canopy has not made this pleasant place, Pedestrian 3 positive comments 3 negative comments 6 comments experience 1.44, 1.46, 1.35 2.22, 2.38, 2.30, 3.14, 3.56, 3.49, 3.4, 4.1, 4.9 pedestrian‐free thru MSP, not enough cover for pedestrians walking more shelter from wind and rain, pedestrianise in (12 responses) traffic free inside to furthest car parks, colonnades front of the Point, put in zebra crossings, more thecentre:mk, no worry with frequently in use by smokers, dangerous north‐south pedestrian access; retain pedestrian
116 Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look and think works well about don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be MBE today? improved)? children running around crossing for pedestrians who have priority access through MSP; need pedestrian x‐ing from in car parking areas but not across centre to library boulevards
Parking 2 positive comments 4 negative comments 6 comments 1.15, 1.37 2.15, 3.49, 4.5, 4.7, 3.44, 3.48, 3.54, 3.65, 3.66, 4.18 (12 comments) like nearby free parking for More free parking needed; Northampton is 2 hours free parking works in Bedford, quick shops, good large free all day; nowhere near enough parking underground (free) parking, more free parking, carpark parking system costing the shops more than any other problem, need another MSCP (possibly behind JL); attractive parking prices Food Centre 1 positive comment 5 negative comments 4 comments 4.4 2.14, 2.21, 2.34, 3.21, 3.54 3.64, 3.33, 3.66, 3.35 (10 comments) Don't get rid of Food Centre Food centre is a disaster, it's a white Food centre issue needs to be resolved as prelude as it is so loved by all elephant, Sainsburys blocking rivals, knock to further planning, find new uses for Food it down ‐ was always a flawed design, no Centre, needs a major reburbishment, replace longer what is says on the can with market square with unique and independent retailers Maintenance 2 positive comments 4 negative comments 2 comments 1.29, 1.41 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.38 3.55, 3.66 (8 comments) lack of litter, clean Porte cocheres need painting, old and improve main area, particularly road and bus dated, looks messy, needs refurbishing, area, roads and car parks in need of repair and bushes trap rubbish & rats, uneven resurfacing footpath levels
117 Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look and think works well about don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be MBE today? improved)? Cycling 0 positive comments 4 negative comments 3 comments 2.16, 2.17, 2.34, 2.35 3.6, 3.63, 3.4 (7 comments) cycle route disappears, difficult access for Redways should penetrate this area to improve cyclists connectivity and inclusivity, cyclists should be allowed to cycle between MSP and thecentre:mk, more accessibility for cyclists Leisure 1 positive comment 1 negative comment 2 comments experience 1.29 3.3 3.3, 3.47, choice of fast food outlets more shops and less restaurants and More entertainment, nice wine bars (4 comments) phone shops Campbell Park 1 positive comment 1 negative comment 1 comment 1.27 2.37 3.63 (3 comments) like the Park gateway to Campbell Park is poor Gateway bridge to Campbell Park much wider Signage 3 comments 3.28, 3.32, 3.33 (3 comments) better sign‐posting for public toilets in shopping centres, more clear signage coming out of town, no clear directions to actual shopping building Misc 3 comments 4.22, 4.16, 3.64, (3 comments) development of art gallery needs special consideration; nice to improve area but if public expenditure is involved in this era of austerity, more important to provide essential services; pressure groups seem to over‐rule council
118 Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look and think works well about don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be MBE today? improved)? Safe 2 comments 1.2, 1.3 (2 comments) police presence, relatively safe Theatre 2 comments District 2.14, 3.64 Theatre District looks grim and desolate, (2 comments) Theatre District is a huddle of buildings and a badly designed car park
119 Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate MBE Public Exhibition: All Comments Question 1: What do you like and think works well about Post Topic No. Midsummer Blvd East today? code Access 1,41 Easy road access, allowing effective public transport access. MK9 2PT Access 1.1 Keep Secklow Gate Bridge open NN10 Access 1.3 Ease of movement. 8TS Access 1,19 Shutting Secklow Gate Bridge is a silly idea MK3 6BL Campbell 1,27 Campbell Park MK46 Park This place needs more glass to cover area and need more Design 1,34 light and warmth and more new things to be more active Like trees, but bushes trap rubbish & rats & homeless Design 1.16 MK6 2HX people Design 1.9 Good shopping centre. Good! Keep it up! Design 1,10 Its open and airy! Design 1,11 I like as it is, I think overall work well! MK3 6JA It's open and welcoming ‐ you don't feel claustrophobic at Design 1,22 all. V. modern Design 1,27 Entrance to Midsummer Place ‐ Summer Solstice Axis MK46 Design 1,29 Spacious OX16 MK15 Design 1,33 I love the bridge through the centre of the centre 8PL MK15 Design 1,33 I love the open area, the trees, the space, the light. 8PL Like it the way it is ‐ so many places to eat and chill out and Design 1,35 MK9 3LQ shop as well Wide open space. Good visibility. Great access to buses, PO13 Design 1,40 good parking layout. 9QP Has a special feel to it as it is not closely encroached upon Design 1,41 MK9 2PT by surrounding buildings. Design 1,43 Big, light, wide open spaces ‐ do not close them off Design 1,45 Trees in spring or autumn MK6 2SS Design 1,47 The trees, the trees, the trees… must be retained Tree‐lined boulevard is a feature. Traffic moves easily along Design 1,50 MK12 it. Leisure 1,29 Choice of fast food outlets OX16 experience Maintenanc 1,29 Lack of litter OX16 e Maintenanc 1,41 Clean & well presented. MK9 2PT e NN10 Market 1.3 Leave the market. 8TS Market 1.5 Like the Market MK6 2
120 Question 1: What do you like and think works well about Post Topic No. Midsummer Blvd East today? code My parents go to the market every week. It is closed on MK13 Market 1.6 Monday and Wednesday. We would like it to be open at 8ES least one of the days. Everything. The market is a good place to get shopping Market 1.7 which the stores do not and it is in a key place for the traders. Market 1,14 The market is find as it is. MK14 Market 1,15 Market 5HX Market 1,16 The Market MK6 2HX Market 1,18 The Market is good where it is Like to keep MK Market & leave it where it is ‐ keep it as big MK15 Market 1,20 as it is 8PO Market 1,28 The Market MK15 Market 1,30 The Market but not location MK13 Market 1,32 The Market 8ES The Market is fantastic. Love the diversity, different smells, Market 1,39 variety of produce, bargains. You can buy anything in the MK15 market. Market 1,42 The Market The Market is a valuable resource for myself and public at large. It complements the (largely) chain stores and is only MK8 Market 1,48 source of fruit and vegetables and small daily items (apart 8DN from M&S) now Sainsbury, waitrose have left centre. The Shopping Centre doors are locked and this was Misc 1,19 MK3 6BL extremely against the original concept ‐ Open it! It's lovely & spacious ‐ especially in the summer. The café's MK46 MSP 1,24 & newsagents is very useful for lunchbreaks. 5PW MK14 Parking 1,15 Nearby free parking space for quick calls. 5HX MK14 parking 1,15 Good large car park for longer stays, always with space. 5HX Parking 1,37 Free parking for retail staff like in USA The pedestrianisation works well but do not like the buses Pedestrians 1,44 MK4 3FN coming through as they tend to travel too fast Having the whole shopping centre free of traffic is great for everyone, especially families as they can relax. Traffic Pedestrians 1,46 MK3 7EL through Midsummer Place is a bad idea. I think it would put people off from visiting. Like not having to worry about children running around Pedestrians 1,35 where there are cars and buses (inside Midsummer Place) ‐ MK9 3LQ v. nice in summer
121 Question 1: What do you like and think works well about Post Topic No. Midsummer Blvd East today? code Public Middleton Hall is a splendid civic square for more practical square / 1,21 use in this climate. Do NOT allow any more encroachent on MK3 6BL space it. It is served by public transport, which I use frequently (for Public shops, services and cinema). It provides an undercover MK8 1,48 transport external access, less crowded therefore quicker from one 8DN end to the other. Public MK14 1,15 Bus stops near (but not always easy to find the right one) transport 5HX Public Reinstate the "Reserved Traffic corridor" for the use of MK15 1,17 transport electric vehicles. 0BD Buses available on Midsummer Blvd, in both directions, Public 1,26 important to keep this feature even if an interchange is MK9 3AR transport planned elsewhere Public 1,29 The bus stops along the Boulevard MK15 transport Public 1,31 Closure to vehicle traffic but still access to public transport transport Public Excellent roads for buses only, no cars clogging the flow of 1,36 transport public transport Public I guess, for bus users, it's a handy focus for buses. I've 1,45 MK6 2SS transport never had any particular thoughts or feelings about it. Safe 1.2 Police[?] NN10 Safe 1.3 Relatively safe. 8TS Shopping 1.4 It's easy to find different shops. experience Shopping 1,23 Nice variety of shops experience shopping 1,25 Good range of shops/cafes. Well ventilated in summer. experience A low rent retail area should be set aside for a variety of Shopping 1,37 independent outlets. And very bored to see the same shops experience whenever we go. More variety Shopping 1,38 Variety of shops and food outlets experience Shopping Not much. I've never been a fan of the Midsummer Place MK8 1,49 experience retail development. 8DN The Point 1,12 The Point is iconic. Young This shopping centre is so good. Add fun stuff for kids ages 1.8 people 0‐12. Young 1,13 Make a 360 Play Area for kids people Young 1,15 Good places for young people to get together by MK14
122 Question 1: What do you like and think works well about Post Topic No. Midsummer Blvd East today? code people McDonalds and Point, as well as Midsummer Arcade 5HX Young 1,29 Child friendly OX16 people
123 Question 2 What do you dislike and don't think works Post Topic No. well about Midsummer Blvd East today? code I don't like the lack of a right turn coming up from the South MK15 Access 2.1 onto Midsummer Blvd 8PL MK15 Access 2.1 I don't like the West End being closed off to vehicles 8PL It was a serious mistake to block Midsummer Blvd. It is a Access 2.24 MK3 6BL draughty place with few people in it It seems a 'nothing.' You cannot drive down it as you once Access 2.7 could. Midsummer Blvd was cut in half by Midsummer Place. MK14 Access 2.8 Getting around by car & bus was made more convoluted. 5DU Dedicated cycle route disappears and the pavements are Cycling 2.16 cracked and wobbly if you cycle on them. The road is full of MK15 'no awareness of cyclists' drivers. Better redways into and through area (e.g. what happens to Cycling 2.17 route 51 when you get through Campbell Park Cycling 2,34 Difficult access for cyclists. MK3 7RE No redway links extend through this area which diminishes the connectivity from the perspective of cyclists; an MK12 Cycling 2.35 inclusionary environment which facilitates alternative ways 5NJ of getting around is inherently better in terms of creating active, animated and commercially sustainable places. Design 2.21 Fairly ugly. It is not a visually appealing area. Exposed. MK6 2SS Design 2,30 Disjointed. Public seating ‐ have to go into food outlets if you want to Design 2,32 OX16 sit down Design 2.36 To the east, there is too much road space. MK8 8DN It is very motor transport hungry. Large spaces between buildings, with roads and parking in between. The result is Design 2.37 MK12 poor for pedestrians and cyclists. Campbell Park gateway is poor. There is no public toilet readily accessible in the area, Design 2.38 MK8 8DN especially at eastern end. Design 2.38 Colonnades are frequently in use by smokers. MK8 8DN MK14 Design 2.12 Not much landscaping etc so rather bleak atmosphere 5HX There isn't much greenergy around. It's all a little grey. The Design 2.19 spacing between features is good, but yeah, a bit dull. Please landscape the sundial area at the front of Design 2.23 Midsummer Place Design 2.3 There isn't enough to look at ie. Flowers / trees etc MK14 Food Centre 2.14 Food Centre is a disaster. 5HJ Food Centre 2.21 Food Centre has become a white elephant. MK6 2SS Food Centre 2,34 Dysfunction of Food Centre area due to Sainsburys blocking MK3 7RE
124 Question 2 What do you dislike and don't think works Post Topic No. well about Midsummer Blvd East today? code use by rivals The Porte cochere 'bridges' need painting! City centre Maintenance 2.4 needs maintenance. Other cities look tidy and neat ‐ it MK6 2HX doesn't take much to do that. Just the will from city hall. Maintenance 2.5 To old and dated. Road to many accidents. Maintenance 2.6 Area looking messy, worn out, needs refurbishing. MK6 2HX Maintenance 2.6 Bushes trap rubbish/rats/homeless people MK6 2HX The levels of footpath surfaces are hard to negotiate safely Maintenance 2.38 for people with mobility or vision impairment. Also a MK8 8DN number of badly cracked flagstones. Market 2.29 Market is tired and grubby. MK46 NN10 Market 2.9 Market should be bigger 8ES Market area depressing because of raised road producing Market 2,34 MK3 7RE dark environment The market is unattractive & poor quality of environment Market 2.37 MK12 for customers. Collectomania show in Middleton Hall was moved to Misc 2.25 Stadium ‐ should be back in Middleton Hall. misc 2.27 Nothing Misc 2.10, Nothing MK3 6JA Windy, rainy gap between shopping areas ‐ needs more MK14 MSP 2.12 shelter. 5HX MK46 MSP 2.13 The cold in winter & when the rain leaks on the floor. 5PW MSP 2.2 It's too cold. Should have heating. MSP 2.25 Don't like open air/cold of Midsummer Place. MSP 2.26 Cold shopping centre in winter. No trees. MSP 2.28 Midsummer is much too cold. We just rush through. MK14 Midsummer Place is an icebox, open to the elements on MK14 MSP 2.8 one side. 5DU MSP 2,32 Cold in the winter OX16 MSP 2,33 To cold The shopping building. Midsummer Place is not a patch on the original shopping building and the canopy feature ‐ MSP 2.36 MK8 8DN heavy as a piece of architecture hasn't made this a particularly pleasant place for pedestrians. Parking 2.15 More free parking needed Not enough cover for pedestrians walking from furthest car PO13 Pedestrians 2.22 parks. 9QP Very dangerous and unclear crossing points for pedestrians who currently seem to have priority when crossing car Pedestrians 2,30 parking areas but no priority when continuing across roadways. This is frequently ignored by groups of
125 Question 2 What do you dislike and don't think works Post Topic No. well about Midsummer Blvd East today? code pedestrians and often motorists stop anyway thus adding to the confusion. This needs sorting.
Too much squeezed into 1 area. We already have a 'city MK14 Public square 2.12 square' ‐ north side of M&S which is nicely laid out but we 5HX aren't allowed to use it as a public meeting place. Public It stops at Midsummer Place. Put the No.7 bus through in a MK14 2.14 transport straight line to the station. 5HJ Public 2.18 The bus access should be lower speed limit. MK4 3FN transport Public 2.29 Traffic, bus interchange. MK46 transport The Bus route is ridiculous ‐ instead of being able to travel Public in a straight line from Campbell Park to Saxon Gate & the MK14 2,31 transport MK Station ‐ the bus has to travel through several traffic 5DZ lights ‐ painful & not necessary. If I live in Northampton (or anywhere) ‐ why should I come Shopping 2.6 to CMK? They have Primarks, M&S, etc ‐ nothing special MK6 2HX experience here. Shopping Midsummer Place contains no shops of interest to anyone MK14 2.8 experience but fashionistas (apart from Waterstones) 5DU Shopping It's all chain stores ‐ little individuality ‐ neet to get new MK16 2.20, experience stores ‐ local people. 0HA The Park and Ride signage is completely missing at CMK and Signage 2,30 this too much be remedied with clearly marked signage at each end of MSB. The Point 2.11 Don't like the point they have let it go MK14 The Point 2.14 Point' needs a truly imaginative make‐over 5HJ The Point 2.21 Point has become an eyesore and looks unsavory. MK6 2SS That God awful cinema that looks like they forgot to PO13 The Point 2.22 remove the scaffolding! 9QP The Point 2.25 The Point has been left to deteriorate. The Point 2.29 The Point, worn & v. tired. MK46 The Point 2.7 The Point seems almost derelict to what it once was. Theatre MK14 2.14 Theatre District is grim and desolate District 5HJ Young Don't like the congregation of youngsters around 2.18 MK4 3FN people McDonalds and the point
126 Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in Post Topic the future (or how could it be improved? codes East‐West traffic light timings both on MBE & adjacent Access 3,42 MK9 2PT roads have very brief timings. Access 3,66 Secklow Gate Bridge should be kept open. Cycling 3,60 Redway links should penetrade this area of CMK to improve MK12 connectivity and inclusivity. All things being equal this will 5NJ make the area more active and commercially sustainable. As state in the original CMK Development Framework [EDAW, 2001], although Milton Keynes has a well‐design Redway cycle network, the system does not extend well into CMK. Notwithstanding some partial improvements [e.g. completion of north‐south Saxon Gate Redway linkage], cycling through CMK, therefore, remains unduly hazardous; the aspiration of creating an environment where cyclists can more safely share carriageways with motor vehicles throughout the city centre [i.e. as cit in the CMK Development Framework] has not, as yet, been realised. The environs of Midsummer Boulevard East do not have good connections to the Redway network; simply put, it has poor 'connectivity' [see Redway map attached]. Given the above context, the opportunity should now be grasped, via the CMK PSA & Environs Masterplan, to complete the 'cruciform' [i.e. a Redway running up Midsummer Boulevard within the central median] and to better link with other strategic Redways arriving in CMK [e.g. H5, H6, V6, and V8]. Such an approach would be entirely consistent with Poicy T1 [The Transport User Hierarchy] of the MK Local Plan [Adopted 2005] and also 'fit' with MKC's low‐carbon agendas/aspirations. Pursuing and implementing such measures along Midsummer Boulevard East will provide the best opportunity of providing genuine transport choice and the potential for modal shift through the creation of a safe environment for cyclists. Significantly, such an approach will make for a more inclusive environment, and, by improving connectivity will make for a more animated, active and commercially viable 'quarter' of CMK. Cyclists should be allowed to cycle between Midsummer Cycling 3,63 MK12 Place and centre:mk or very near. More evergreen trees/plants ‐ Midsummer looks great in MK19 Design 3,13 summer but bleak in winter 6FD Better atmosphere for all ages of people ‐ more landscaping MK14 Design 3,14 and less busy (like the 'City Square' the other side) 5HX Design 3,23 More public toilets Design 3,33 Could make it prettier ‐ better landscaping MK6 2SS Design 3,34 What are they going to do about the tree? It's almost dead MK6 3JF
127 Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in Post Topic the future (or how could it be improved? codes ‐ put a new tree in there (e.g. Maple) MK13 Design 3,4 Landmark Bldg at end e.g. "Midsummer Axis" 8AT Design 3,45 It's fine as it is More floral displays would make it more attractive and Design 3,46 MK4 3FN more seating available. Is there room for a seated park where lunch time eaters etc Design 3,51 MK6 4UB can enjoy like a small London park? Design 3,56 Pedestrianise the in front of the point MK46 Design 3,58 More art and sculptures; more natural features. I should like to see it better used for leisure ‐ informal as well as formal (=paying). It should still be readily accessible by public transport and bear in mind needs of disabled and people with young children. There should be ample seating MK8 Design 3,61 (free, not just cafe) indoor and outdoor and an area of 8DN garden for relaxation from shopping. Toilets should be close by and available early and late. The area should not serve to 'barricade' one side of the city centre from another, especially after closing time. CMK needs a central garden. Some 20 years ago, what is shown as a 'temporary car park' used to be such a space ‐ used for festivals and as general summer sitting area. It MK8 Design 3,62 would be appropriate for this former use to be restored to 8DN CMK ‐ exact form, whether formal garden or informal space to be decided through residential consultation. Boulevard to east of Midsummer Place should remain with segregated carriageways retaining central trees but should MK8 Design 3,62 be narrowed down sufficient to accommodate public 8DN transport up to sacle of an X5 coach ‐ but allowing for more pedestrian space on either side. Gateway bridge to the Campbell park much wider than Design 3,63 MK12 existing so pedestrians & cyclists can use it easier I believe that Midsummer Boulevard East has to be developed as a whole, with an overarching vision. There is too much piecemeal Design 3,64 development. The entry point to Midsummer Boulevard, from Campbell Park, needs special consideration, as part of an organic approach. The issue of the future of the food court needs to be resolved, as Design 3,64 a prelude to further planning.
128 Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in Post Topic the future (or how could it be improved? codes Vibrancy and space for socializing ‐ I don’t understand why these two very different things have been lumped together. We could improve vibrancy by having the shops open their doors onto MBE again, as they used to. Failing that, we could at least ensure that the shop windows looked remotely enticing. I will attach to my email some pictures that will demonstrate what I mean. We could improve MK14 Design 3,65 space for socializing by providing more pleasant indoor 7RB areas. It has been suggested that one of the original ideas for what is now the Midsummer Place wind tunnel was to have a space like Covent Garden where there could be performers and plenty of seating. The space currently used for the same old food chains could be used instead for more interesting food providers and possibly a few small specialist shops. The existing beautiful trees in Midsummer Boulevard East should be retained and incorporated in the new Design 3,66 development plans. Milton Keynes must be kept as a city of trees. Design & MK13 3,49 Put in zebra crossings and more free parking Parking 9EQ Knock down food centre & start again ‐ it was always a MK14 Food centre 3,21 flawed design 5DU Food centre 3,33 New uses for old Food Centre MK6 2SS The Food Centre is not longer what it say on the can and is Food centre 3,54 MK15 disjointed The Food Centre needs a major refurbish. The free multi‐ storey parking should be retained. The small independent Food Centre 3,66 shops kept and more encouraged, and a new supermarket. The vacant Sainsburys shop is an eyesore it should be put to a good use as the empty Waitrose shop has been. Knock down Food Hall, replace with market sq with unique Food Centre 3,35 and independent retailers Leisure 3,3 More entertainment experience Leisure 3,47 Nice wine bars. experience Maintenanc Improve main area from the lights right up to Midsummer 3,55 e Place, particularly the road and bus area. Maintenanc The roads and car parks in Midsummer Boulevard East are 3,66 e all in need of repair and resurfacing. MK14 Market 3,14 Preserve and enhance market 5HX Market 3,16 Bigger market and covered NN10
129 Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in Post Topic the future (or how could it be improved? codes 8TS As a market trader of Milton Keynes for 25 years, it would MK4 Market 3,18 be good to see some sort of Investment on the Market, e.g. 4HQ public toilets, paving stones around the market replacing Market 3,2 Antique, craft markets on a more regular basis. Good market area for permanent stalls, fish market like we MK14 Market 3,21 used to have on Thursdays 5DU The Market needs a roof ‐ dreadful working conditions in Market 3,29 the wind and wet ‐ probably contrary to H&S Act! Market 3,33 Improve appearance of market area MK6 2SS Market 3,43 Better lighting in market & no cracked pavements MK15 MK13 Market 3,48 To have a outdoor and indoor market 9EQ Market 3,5 Continued market MK13 Market 3,54 Bigger and better market MK15 Market 3,56 Massively improve the market MK46 Modernise Market ‐ look at great markets in Scandinavia & Market 3,8 Germany ‐ more tourist attraction ‐ families bring kids to MK6 2HX the Market Market re‐located in a purpose built indoor facility. Market 3,63 Secklow Bridge can close to enable development of that MK12 area. Market 3,64 The open-air market should be an organic part of the overall plan. Since I am representing the market traders at the workshop I won’t say much about this but, as a shopper, I will say that the market represents almost all that is left of the ‘high street’ aspect of CMK. It is the only place to buy pet food, hardware, tools, car accessories, and a multitude of specialist items. Even when CMK provides alternatives, they are expensive and not as convenient. For me, walking from MK14 Market 3,65 Downs Barn, the alternative for fresh fruit and vegetables is 7RB M&S at the furthest end of the shopping building. I remember when the shopping building opened and we had small shops selling hardware, decorating materials, home furnishings, electronics, books etc. The market is now the only place for such small or specialist retailers. By all means enhance it. The bigger and better provisioned it is the more I shall like it. The Market is a big asset to MK residents it should be kept Market 3,66 in its current location. It should be refurbished and possibly enlarged.
130 Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in Post Topic the future (or how could it be improved? codes The development of the art gallery needs special consideration. It needs to expand, and if the development of an independent cinema forms part of its plans, all to the good (it is surprising that Misc 3,64 the nearest independent cinemas are in Northampton and Oxford). But if the site is too small, or development compromises the overall picture, then other avenues need to be looked at. Misc 3,26 How much did it cost to do this mall? It's cold in winter/autumn months as I work in Midsummer MK46 MSP 3,36 Place, doors or more shelter would be useful 5PW MSP 3,5 Get heating Parking 3,44 2 hours free parking works in Bedford! MK13 Parking 3,48 Underground parking (free) 9EQ Parking 3,54 More free parking MK15 There are 22 relevant reviews of CMK on TripAdvisor on the internet http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review‐ g187055‐d3138412‐Reviews‐The_Centre_MK‐ Milton_Keynes_Buckinghamshire_England.html 9 mention parking charges as a negative and 8 mention the easy availability of parking as a positive (often the same people). It is not just the charges that come under attack but the complexity of sorting out the various categories of charges. What is clear to me as an almost daily visitor is how many of MK14 Parking 3,65 the higher cost spaces are available most of the time. I 7RB know this is subject to a separate review so will not elaborate. What does need to be said, however, is how much trade is lost to the shops by the system of parking charges. I frequently meet friends for coffee or lunch who would have happily stayed much longer if they hadn’t already paid for a defined amount of parking or been lucky enough to find time‐limited free parking. I would hazard a guess that this system is costing the shops more than any other problem that we might identify at the workshop. Another multi‐storey car park provided, possibly behind John Lewis with access from Marlborough St. Parking Parking 3,66 should be free for MK residents and low cost for visitors to encourage more shoppers. Pedestrian/ MK13 cycling 3,4 More pedestrian accessibility North‐South 8AT accessibility Pedestrian/ MK13 cycling 3,4 More accessibility for cyclists North‐South 8AT accessibility MK14 Pedestrians 3,14 More shelter from wind and rain 5HX
131 Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in Post Topic the future (or how could it be improved? codes Sktech plans needed as I don't believe people understand Process 3,27 SG17 5JH the overall picture Public Maybe some more communal areas wth more cover for 3,9 MK3 6JA square weather Public 3,12 Like the idea of square square Need civic space for free events and stuff that could be put Public 3,23 on by local authority and voluntary organisations ‐ need square public land, as need free points for amplication etc I like the idea of a town square with the obvious location Public 3,59 where market currently is. Any chance the market could be square satisfactorily relocated to a position in what Public 3,4 Use the car park next to the point as a city square square Public 3,7 Town centre central public place square Public 3,8 A public square MK6 2HX square Create public square on top of Blvd between Theatre District and John Lewis. In creating a public square, Midsummer Blvd can be closed to traffic to create a pedestrian and cycling environment (between Secklow and Public 3,63 Marlborough) . In the public square should be very tall piece MK12 square of public art to create a landmark structure. Removal of surface parking / closure of the Blvd creates opportunity for the ped/cycle environment described and allow space for leisure/retail development. I have lived in and adjacent to CMK since 1980 and I have never heard anyone say we needed a town or civic square. Most recently some people of whom most of us know nothing decided that we needed a public memorial site so we now have the MKRose. The MKNews picture of our Mayor as ‘one of several people’ at the recent Holocaust Memorial says it all. If we are looking for outside space we Public MK14 3,65 have it in various places including opposite the Council square 7RB offices, outside the theatre and in Campbell Park. The suggestion that we should have another space further blocking off MBE is a surprise to me. If you have spent any time in the area between MacDonalds and The Point you would know that this is where we already have a disproportionate number of apparent ‘undesirables’, so why would we want to expand it?
132 Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in Post Topic the future (or how could it be improved? codes A city square would be good as long as it has trees, shrubs, flowers and a water feature with a seating area. Street Public 3,66 entertainers and vendors encouraged Not like Queens square Court which was lovely but is sadly now soulless, grey and boring. Public A bus interchange with facilities that benefit the city. Not 3,10 MK3 7EL transport the terrible bus shelters at Food Centre end. Midsummer Place retains a corridor for eventual public transport. Now that we have viable electric buses, this Public should be opened up to take this form of transport. Larger MK8 3,62 transport diesel buses could continue to use lower 9th St but all the 8DN local buses should be electric ones and travel through canopy area ‐ as part of a redesign for that area. Public MK14 3,14 Better facilities for people to use buses transport 5HX Public 3,15 Bus station to make it easier to find how to get home transport Public 3,17 Closed bus station for shelter. a central point transport Public A nice long bus station on lower 10th St where it will be 3,19 transport warm and dry Public 3,23 Need to make sure bus areas work for disabled people transport Public 3,23 Drop‐off point for car users to pick‐up kids etc transport Public 3,24 Create an indoor bus station with shops too MK9 3ES transport You need a tramway. The Boulevards were designed to accommodate a double track tramway. Nine new metro Public 3,38 lines opened in China last December ‐ we are being left MK3 6BL transport behind. Possible interchange between bus & tram is in the right place already. Public 3,39 Heated bus station MK3 6BL transport Public Anything that improves flow and frequency of bus. Local 3,41 transport transport needs improving. Public 3,52 Bus station to be relocated to centre transport Public 3,56 Move bus interchange 1 block east MK46 transport Public Dedicated transport service from train station to Coachway 3,8 MK6 2HX transport (e.g. tram)
133 Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in Post Topic the future (or how could it be improved? codes I subscribe to the original transport plan – with a tram or equivalent running in a straight line from the station to Campbell Public Park, and buses running along the parallel boulevards. This could 3,64 transport be a major attraction, and helps resolve the perennial problem of communication between the station and the shopping district. There is no need for buses to weave in and out. Although I have a car I seldom use it in CMK. I have far more experience as a pedestrian and a bus user. Routing all buses along MBE and then onto the Avebury Boulevard dog’s leg before returning to the Boulevard adds considerably to the time taken to get through the centre of Milton Keynes and has no advantages if you are not intending to alight there. However it is essential that there is quick, frequent and reliable public transport for those who want to alight in CMK and this should go directly between the railway station and the Campbell Park end of MBE. Most towns have a bus Public station either in or adjacent to their main shopping area. MK14 3,65 transport CMK needs either a bus station or, at least, a ‘hub’ where 7RB interchange is made as easy as possible. There should also be toilets, protected waiting areas, real‐time information, and a place to buy drinks, snacks, magazines etc. Ideally there should also be an office where information about transport and about CMK can be picked up. The current situation where, in the absence of any real‐time information, you have to run between stops to get the first bus that will take you to the railway station is primitive. In this respect at least the railway station ‘hub’ is a great improvement on the old system. Public A covered seating and waiting area is needed in the 3,66 transport Marlborough Gate Coach Park for coach passengers. The "bus stopping" area by the Point needs a drastic Public overhaul, it is currently very run‐down, grim and dirty. 3,66 transport Other large cities/towns have covered waiting areas, real time bus display boards and facilities to be proud of. More independent shops but only chain stores can afford Shopping 3,1 the rent ‐ may need to subsidise the rent and service MK9 6FD experience charge. Better to allow local businesses earn a living. Need small shopping centre for small independent Shopping 3,11 businesses, not chain stores. For young people ‐ Mk1 6 experience commission, not rents. Shopping 3,2 Blue Banana store experience Shopping More affordable space for small, local, independent 3,2 MK4 1JP experience businesses.
134 Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in Post Topic the future (or how could it be improved? codes Shopping MK13 3,3 More shops, less restaurants and phone shops. experience 8AT Shopping MK16 3,37 More small shops ‐ specialist, deli's, farmer's market experience 0HA Shopping More boutique & individual stores subsidised by larger 3,44 experience stores Set up units for charities to use on rotational basis. Or for Shopping vendors inside the centre to use for special sales on 3,46 MK4 3FN experience weekly/monthly basis. Or coffee/tea units with outside seating. Shopping Places for local small business, not just big national retailers 3,54 MK15 experience and franchises Shopping 3,57 It would be great to have an affordable art and craft area experience Another department store and a Primark would bring in Shopping 3,66 more shoppers. BUT NOT SITED AT THE EXPENSE OF experience SECKLOW GATE BRIDGE. Signage 3,28 Sign‐posting for public toilets in shopping centres WA4 6DF More clear signage coming from out of town, lots of car PO13 Signage 3,32 parkds, no clear directions to the actual shopping area; 9QP more likely to find ski dome than mk:centre shops entrance. Signage 3,33 Clearer traffic paths ‐ lots of dead ends at the moment MK6 2SS MK14 The Point 3,21 Blow up the point ‐ I'll press the button 5DU The Point is looking very tired. It's an iconic building ‐ can MK14 The Point 3,53 we make it look better. 6JX Improve the pont, looks aged because of the lack of The Point 3,55 investment The Point should be retained and restored and re‐opened MK8 The Point 3,62 for a new use. 8DN I believe that at least the profile of The Point should be retained in some form or other. Architecturally it may not be a great design, The Point 3,64 but it is an iconic memory of the original development of MK and has real interest and heritage status as the first multiplex in the UK The Point structure should kept and maintained in good The Point 3,66 condition, and a viable use found for it. This is important as it is one of the few icons of MK. Theatre While the theatre is a striking building, the rest of the so-called 3,64 theatre district is not! A huddle of buildings, and a badly designed District car park. Young Seating area for young people to hang out throughout the 3,12 MK6 2 people Boulevard Young Areas for children to play and expand their minds (like MK10 3,22 people Willen Lake) 9NZ
135 Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in Post Topic the future (or how could it be improved? codes Young 3,25 Family friendly people A skatepark, ramps maybe? Mini‐ramps? More variety is Young 3,3 great! Somewhere where people can sit and watch [the people skateboarders] Young We would like a skatepark, having a variety is more fun to 3,31 people skate and also it can be fun for people to watch Young Skateboard area (better than Buszy) so people can watch 3,6 people and interact. Young Better for young people to enjoy beng there; Place for 3,6 people young people to hang out (e.g. youth club) Young people / 3,35 Central university / education to breathe into it University
136 Post Topic No. Q4 Do you have any other questions or comments? code Access 4,2 Keep Bridge Open at all Costs Roads need to be better ‐ that's what we pay road tax for, Access 4,13 and pedestrian walk ways. Design 4,2 Make open space with seating by theatre More turf down main strip of Midsummer Blvd. Too Design 4,7 MK3 5FS concrete. Design 4,7 Generally add more plants/flowers MK3 5FS More nature Life will make CMK look more appealing to the Design 4,13 eye. Visitor to area. Very attractive parking prices, easy to find a space, looks like buses are convenient too. Lots of shops, PO13 Design 4,18 but with so many bits 'added on' need to know where to 9QP start. Oh, and maybe more maps of centre itself. Midsummer Blvd could be converted to Park area. Trees Design 4,21 and seating, much like a london park. Design 4,23 Bring it more upmarket Being a disabled pensioner, I do not walk far and Design 4,19 somewhere I could have a drink and watch something other MK4 3FN than traffic would be good. Food You can't get rid of the Food Court either because it is so 4,4 Centre loved by all Market 4,2 Enlarge Market Market too jammed in ‐ some quality of merchandise is Market 4,3 questionable Market 4,5 Mini market stalls in Midsummer Place Market 4,6 Leave market as it is, but add indoor market Market 4,7 Market is dated and needs to be moved MK3 5FS Market 4,20 Night market ‐ connect with theatre, night out etc MK4 2EV Misc 4,8 Keep up the good work guys! NN10 Misc 4,10 None 8ES Misc 4,12 N/A MK3 6JA Pressure groups seem to over‐rule council. Why do we Misc 4,22 allow so few to make our decisions on what happens in MK46 CMK? Who do they think they are…. It would be nice to improve this area but if public expenditure is involved, in this era of austerity, I think there Misc 4,16 MK6 2SS are far more important priorities ‐ especially essential services. Parking 4,5 Want free parking ‐ Northampton is free parking all day Parking 4,7 Nowhere near enough parking! MK3 5FS Parking 4,7 Please add more parking!! MK3 5FS MK15 Pedestrians 4,1 Remain pedestrian access through Midsummer Place 0AY
137 Post Topic No. Q4 Do you have any other questions or comments? code Pedestrians 4,9 Need pedestrian x‐ing from centre towards library Get sponsorship from stores to put displays on, ie. Choirs, Public 4,19 dancers, bands, buskers, gymnasts. Don't keep putting MK4 3FN square them inside Middleton Hall. Public Organised Street entertainment / buskers ‐ covent garden 4,20 MK4 2EV square style will give area more character and appeal. I hope that no single commercial interest or consortium of such, is allowed to dictate the use of the area to its own perceived advantage and to the detriment of the quality of life of residents and visitors. It would be good to see some Public truly public space, where public gatherings, stalls of a MK8 4,25 square campaigning nature (temporary), leafletting, petitioning 8DN and engaging with the public are not excluded or subject to far greater restrictions than is the case in most city 'high streets'. This has been a valuable freedom in British life and should not be 'planned' out of our city. Public Suspended monorail connecting train station up to MK15 4.1 transport Marlborough Gate 0AY Public Provide covered area by the Coach Park behind John Lewis 4,11 transport with seating for waiting passengers Public Will the transport pods that run from the train station 4,17 transport feature in the area in the future? Public 4,23 Better public transport to train station transport Shopping 4,5 Need Wimpey Bar experience Shopping 4,5 24‐hr shopping centre experience Shopping Don't mind if fill in Midsummer Place with shops and 4,5 experience market stalls Shopping 4,6 Play radio 2 or classic FM music experience Shopping 4,6 No casinos or betting shops experience Shopping 4,7 Great range of shops MK3 5FS experience You should not have chased Waitrose away. We hardly Shopping 4,15 come into CMK anymore ‐ except for this exhibition, which MK3 6BL experience we were told to attend! Shopping Worried about too many big shopping centres (city centre & 4,24 experience stadium) and too few people ‐ they all suffer The Point 4,2 Keep 'Point' but repaint! The Point 4,4 Don't get rid of the Point, it is an icon of Milton Keynes The Point 4,5 Knock the Point down or repaint it ‐ put up flats or social
138 Post Topic No. Q4 Do you have any other questions or comments? code club The Point 4,14 Give us an iconic building to replace the Point The Point 4,19 Do not take down the point as it is a landmark of the centre. MK4 3FN Young 4,6 Need play group area for kids people Young No skateboarding ‐ skate board park in Campbell Park, not 4,6 people city centre
139
140