DOCSLIB.ORG

London Assembly Planning and Housing Committee Private/Public Space Investigation Evidence Received Investigation: Private/Public Space

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
London Assembly Planning and Housing Committee Private/Public Space Investigation Evidence Received Investigation: Private/Public Space London Assembly Planning and Housing Committee Private/Public Space Investigation Evidence Received Investigation: Private/Public Space Contents Evidence Reference Organisation Page Number Number PPS001 Land Use Consultants 3 PPS002 Potters Fields Trust 4 PPS003 Thorn Hill Bridge Community Gardeners 5 PPS004 British Land Company 12 PPS005 CABE 13 PPS006 Friends of the Parkland Walk 15 PPS007 City of London 21 PPS008 Living Streets 23 PPS009 London Councils 29 PPS010 Okra Landscape Architects 31 PPS011 Sustrans 34 PPS012 Atkins 41 PPS013 The Glass House 43 PPS014 Green Spaces Forum 52 PPS015 Think Place 53 PPS016 Urban Space Management 55 PPS017 UCL Prof Carmona 58 PPS018 London Borough of Bexley 59 PPS019 City of Westminster 61 PPS020 London Forum 65 PPS021 confidential 67 PPS022 London Borough Waltham Forest 69 PPS023 Mayor 74 PPS024 Royal Parks 81 PPS025 BCSC [British Council of Shopping Centres] 83 PPS026 CAE [Centre for Accessible Environments] 86 PPS027 Anna Minton 89 PPS028 British Property Federation 91 PPS029 The Crown Estate 92 PPS030 BTCV 99 PPS031 Legal and General 103 PPS032 London Wildlife Trust 105 PPS033 Ealing Wildlife Network and Brent River and Canal Society 112 PPS034 London Borough Southwark 114 PPS035 London First 118 PPS036 Community Matters 121 PPS037 Guide Dogs association 123 PPS038 Land Securities PLC 131 PPS039 English Heritage 133 PPS040 Natural England 137 PPS041 Crossrail 149 PPS042 Grosvenor 156 PPS043 inmidtown 175 1 (Blank Page) 2 PPS001 Land Use Consultants Sent: 26 October 2010 11:51 To: Alexandra Beer Subject: investigation into management of publicly accsssible space inLondon Dear Alexandra I am replying on behalf of my colleagues … at Land Use Consultants. Thankyou for inviting comments onyour letter 18th oct. We have some general points : a ) We understand that this is a study by the office of the Mayor of London , but suggest that the references to spaces that are used by Londoners it might be more inclusive to think about 'users of Public Spaces in London '. b ) The descriptions of what is meant by Publicly Accessible Space are general . For the purposes of this study we suggest that Residential space may need to be considered distinctly from other public realm. eg the need to provide ' defensible space ' around public housing . c) Applicable to anumber of the questions : what is the space for & what is it intended to provide ? Different types of publicly accessible space provide necessarily different facilities. Similarly - think about the presentation of the space , its appearance & condition - there is often a 'requirement' in project briefs to ensure ' Highest Quality ' . This is an over-used & meaningless phrase - a space should provide the things & experiences appropriate for its location & audience - eg some city green space shouls be wild & unkempt to provide habitat for birds & insects, etc. The Questions : 1. Respect for fellow humans &. beiing able to find, get into & use the space for the purpose intended . 2 . Is the space managed for its users or for the convenience of management ? Is it managed to enhance the Quality of Life or for cost benefit reasons ? 3 . - 4 . BIDs - if used appropriately are a really good tool - unfortunately the original concept developed in the USA has become complicated & relatively difficult to apply. Think about the type of space, what it is to be used for & who is going to look after it . Think about an appropriate 'level' of maintenance - rather than the loose term ' highest quality'. 5 . Focus on what the function of the public space is & consider what it should provide - trying to make ALL public rrealm provide everything waters down the idea of diverse places . Focus is good . 6 . Our experiences show that the more successful outcomes from involving communities happen when the Community is enabled to work with the landowner & their professional advisers . 7 - 8 - We hope this is helpful 3 PPS002 Potters Fields Trust Management of publicly accessible space in London London is justifiably proud of its excellent reputation for public space and particularly green space and to have such areas as the Royal Parks and Hampstead Heath so close to the city centre is a remarkable benefit of our history and London’s development. The tradition of developing and improving those spaces has continued into the 20th century with areas such as Mile End Park and Burgess park both of which came about as a result of WW2 and the need for slum clearance. London has a complex government structure which could lead to a dysfunctional approach to public space. However due to either people power or far sighted political thinking the tradition of quality public space continues both in publicly and privately owned land. A lot of privately owned open land is accessible. This is intentional on the part of the landowners who are either benevolent or see a commercial benefit from allowing access or it is covered by s106 arrangements. A good example of this is More London, where there is good access and activities provided on a very well run estate. While they More London tries to control some forms of access such as cycling this is done on the biases of safety and consideration for all users. Much of the privately owned public space in London is maintained, presented and interpreted to a very high standard probably better than publicly owned space, this is for commercial reasons, the lack of “political” interferences and better funding. Potters Fields Park Management Trust is a good example of semi private management of public space. The park belongs to LB Southwark and is leased to a Trust. The Trust is made up of local land owner, local residents groups, the council, GLA and the business improvement district. This board makes it accountable to the local community whilst it operates under a lease and services level agreement with the council. The benefits are the Trust can raise its own funds to maintain the park and can and respond to the needs of an area with a very high footfall. Where as previously the income generated was not ring fenced for the park and the quality of the space suffered due to insufficient maintenance. In the case of Potters Fields Park the funds are raised by holding events, not all of which are enjoyed by all of the people all of the time and there is a need to keep a balance between commercial and community use and open access. The Trust system only works where there is potential to raise funds and or be financially independent. However there may be opportunities through s106 agreements to set up Trusts, with local support. It is likely in the current economic climate that funding for accessible space will be reduced and to mitigate the effects of reduced funding a partnership approach should be adopted as well as encouraging income generation on publicly owned land. This may sometimes cause frustration when areas of parks etc are fenced off for events such as concerts, such as Hyde Park and Kenwood House; however it is far better to have the occasional event and allow quality access the rest of the time. It is often possible to raise funds for open space through such activities as filming which are often not intrusive and take place early in the morning. The result also helps to publicise the location and the city. The financial situations of both Castle Howard in North Yorkshire (Brideshead Revisited) and Lyme Park in Cheshire (Pride and Prejudice) have been transformed by becoming film/TV stars. Private owners of publicly owned accessible space will normally have a vested commercial interest in allowing free public access. There may be some occasions where private owners will act selfishly in not allowing access to public space. However this small minority should not be seen as the norm, most see benefits from allowing access. In my view it would be a mistake to try and legislate. It could cause a backlash and less privately owned public space would be created. The way forward is through cooperation and partnership using the planning process to find positive solutions with land owners and accepting in these difficult times we have to be more creative in our approach to income generation so that we can maintain quality open space in London. Chief Executive Potters Fields Park Management Trust 27 October 2010 4 PPS003 Thorn Hill Bridge Community Gardeners Sent: 01 November 2010 15:28 To: Alexandra Beer Subject: RE: London Assembly - Investigation into the management of public space Hi Alex I am attaching several documents for you to look over at your leisure. The first one is a general display about TBCG They all explain about my group and answer many of the questions posed in pdf. about management of public space. Previously Thornhill Bridge Community Gardeners received a Green Pennant award 2010/2011 (see attached report) Photo at GLA taken last Monday http://www.flickr.com/photos/52558332@N08/5114679573/in/set‐ 72157625115399373/ Thornhill Bridge Community Gardeners received award “RHS It’s Your Neighbourhood” we got Thriving (Level 4), attached is the RHS report, we only missed the top category by 8 points. Link to video about Thornhill Bridge Community Gardeners http://www.vimeo.com/11788323 1. What rights should Londoners have in public space and how can these rights be maintained through the planning and development process? Londoners can form FoG’s or Friends of Groups and join LPGSF to have a say 2. What models are there of managing public space in London and what benefits and disadvantages are there to the different ways of managing public space? Please consult with LBI Greenspace team for models. My group is one the first ones set up in LBI in 2003 but there are many fine examples in our borough 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Riverside Energy Park Design and Access Statement
    Riverside Energy Park Design and Access Statement VOLUME NUMBER: PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER: EN010093 DOCUMENT REFERENCE: 07 7. 3 November 2018 Revision 0 APFP Regulation 5(2)(q) Planning Act 2008 | Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Riverside Energy Park Design and Access Statement - Document Reference 7.3 Harry’s Yard, 176-178 Newhall St, Birmingham, B3 1SJ T: +44 (0)121 454 4171 E:architects@weedonarchitects.co.uk Riverside Energy Park Design and Access Statement - Document Reference 7.3 Contents Summary 3.4 Site Analysis 3.4.1 REP Site 1.0 Introduction 3.4.2 Sun Path Analysis 1.1 Introduction 3.4.3 Access 1.1.1 Cory Riverside Energy Holdings Limited 3.4.4 Site Opportunities and Constraints 1.1.2 Riverside Resource Recovery Facility 1.2 Purpose of the Design and Access Statement 4.0 Design Process 4.1 Overview of the Design Process to date 2.0 The Proposed Development 4.2 Good Design Principles 2.1 Overview 2.2 Key Components of the Proposed Development 5.0 Illustrative Masterplan 2.2.1 The Energy Recovery Facility 5.1 Introduction 2.2.2 Anaerobic Digestion Facility 5.2 Illustrative Masterplan Proposals 2.2.3 Solar Photovoltaic Panels 5.2.1 Illustrative Masterplan Proposal 1 - North to South - Stack South 2.2.4 Battery Storage 5.2.2 Illustrative Masterplan Proposal 2 - North to South - Stack North 2.2.5 Other Elements 5.2.3 Illustrative Masterplan Proposal 3 - East to West - Stack West 3.0 Site Overview 5.2.4 Illustrative Masterplan Proposal 4 - East to West - Stack East
    [Show full text]
  • All London Green Grid River Cray and Southern Marshes Area Framework
    All River Cray and Southern Marshes London Area Framework Green Grid 5 Contents 1 Foreword and Introduction 2 All London Green Grid Vision and Methodology 3 ALGG Framework Plan 4 ALGG Area Frameworks 5 ALGG Governance 6 Area Strategy 8 Area Description 9 Strategic Context 10 Vision 12 Objectives 14 Opportunities 16 Project Identification 18 Project Update 20 Clusters 22 Projects Map 24 Rolling Projects List 28 Phase Two Early Delivery 30 Project Details 48 Forward Strategy 50 Gap Analysis 51 Recommendations 53 Appendices 54 Baseline Description 56 ALGG SPG Chapter 5 GGA05 Links 58 Group Membership Note: This area framework should be read in tandem with All London Green Grid SPG Chapter 5 for GGA05 which contains statements in respect of Area Description, Strategic Corridors, Links and Opportunities. The ALGG SPG document is guidance that is supplementary to London Plan policies. While it does not have the same formal development plan status as these policies, it has been formally adopted by the Mayor as supplementary guidance under his powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended). Adoption followed a period of public consultation, and a summary of the comments received and the responses of the Mayor to those comments is available on the Greater London Authority website. It will therefore be a material consideration in drawing up development plan documents and in taking planning decisions. The All London Green Grid SPG was developed in parallel with the area frameworks it can be found at the following link: http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/all-london- green-grid-spg .
    [Show full text]
  • Species Knowledge Review: Shrill Carder Bee Bombus Sylvarum in England and Wales
    Species Knowledge Review: Shrill carder bee Bombus sylvarum in England and Wales Editors: Sam Page, Richard Comont, Sinead Lynch, and Vicky Wilkins. Bombus sylvarum, Nashenden Down nature reserve, Rochester (Kent Wildlife Trust) (Photo credit: Dave Watson) Executive summary This report aims to pull together current knowledge of the Shrill carder bee Bombus sylvarum in the UK. It is a working document, with a view to this information being reviewed and added when needed (current version updated Oct 2019). Special thanks to the group of experts who have reviewed and commented on earlier versions of this report. Much of the current knowledge on Bombus sylvarum builds on extensive work carried out by the Bumblebee Working Group and Hymettus in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since then, there have been a few key studies such as genetic research by Ellis et al (2006), Stuart Connop’s PhD thesis (2007), and a series of CCW surveys and reports carried out across the Welsh populations between 2000 and 2013. Distribution and abundance Records indicate that the Shrill carder bee Bombus sylvarum was historically widespread across southern England and Welsh lowland and coastal regions, with more localised records in central and northern England. The second half of the 20th Century saw a major range retraction for the species, with a mixed picture post-2000. Metapopulations of B. sylvarum are now limited to five key areas across the UK: In England these are the Thames Estuary and Somerset; in South Wales these are the Gwent Levels, Kenfig–Port Talbot, and south Pembrokeshire. The Thames Estuary and Gwent Levels populations appear to be the largest and most abundant, whereas the Somerset population exists at a very low population density, the Kenfig population is small and restricted.
    [Show full text]
  • Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) Within the Borough
    LONDON BOROUGH OF BEXLEY SITES OF IMPORTANCE FOR NATURE CONSERVATION REPORT DECEMBER 2016 Table of contents Bexley sites of importance for nature conservation PART I. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5 Purpose and format of this document ................................................................................ 5 Bexley context ................................................................................................................... 5 What is biodiversity? ......................................................................................................... 6 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) ....................................................... 6 Strategic green wildlife corridors ....................................................................................... 8 Why has London Borough of Bexley adopted a new SINC assessment? ........................ 10 PART II. Site-by-site review ......................................................................................... 12 Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation ....................................... 13 M015 Lesnes Abbey Woods and Bostall Woods ........................................................... 13 M031 the River Thames and tidal tributaries ................................................................. 15 M041 Erith Marshes ...................................................................................................... 19 M105
    [Show full text]
  • Bexley Bird Report 2016
    Bexley Bird Report 2016 Kingfisher –Crossness – Donna Zimmer Compiled by Ralph Todd June 2017 Bexley Bird Report 2016 Introduction This is, I believe, is the very first annual Bexley Bird Report, it replaces a half yearly report previously produced for the RSPB Bexley Group Newsletter/web-site and Bexley Wildlife web- site. I shall be interested in any feedback to try and measure how useful, informative or welcome it is. I suspect readers will be surprised to read that 153 different species turned up across the Borough during the 12 months of 2016. What is equally impressive is that the species reports are based on just over 13,000 individual records provided by nearly 80 different individuals. Whilst every endeavour has been made to authenticate the records they have not been subject to the rigorous analysis they would by the London Bird Club (LBC) as would normally be the case prior to publication in the annual London Bird Report (LBR). This report has also been produced in advance of the final data being available from LBC as this is not available until mid-summer the following year – it is inevitable therefore that some records might be missing. I am, however, confident no extra species would be added. The purpose of the report is four-fold:- To highlight the extraordinary range of species that reside, breed, pass through/over or make temporary stops in the Borough To hopefully stimulate a greater interest not only in the birds but also the places in which they are found. Bexley Borough has a wide range of open spaces covering a great variety of habitat types.
    [Show full text]
  • Parks, People and Nature
    Parks, People and Nature A guide to enhancing natural habitats in London’s parks and green spaces in a changing climate Natural England works for people, places and nature to conserve and enhance biodiversity, landscapes and wildlife in rural, urban, coastal and marine areas. We conserve and enhance the natural environment for its intrinsic value, iithe wellbeing and enjoyment of people, and the economic prosperity it brings. Parks, People and Nature A guide to enhancing natural habitats in London’s parks and green spaces in a changing climate Introduction My vision for London is of a green city, and a fair city, where everyone has access to a high quality green space in which wildlife can be encountered close to where they live and work. London has some of the Ýnest parks of any capital city in the world. Yet it also has some areas lacking in green space, and many more where the quality of the green spaces could be better. This booklet provides a valuable practical guide on how to improve access to nature in parks and green spaces, complimenting my London Plan Implementation Report on Improving LondonersÔ access to nature. Appropriate design and management of our parks and green spaces will be one of the key challenges that will enable the City to adapt to climate change. Park managers need to be working now to plant the trees that will provide shade for a much warmer city in the 2080s. We also need to start thinking now how our parks can help in addressing broader environmental challenges such as Þood risk management.
    [Show full text]
  • Meritas Is Proud to Present Paddington Gardens
    A selection of spacious 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom apartments and penthouses MARYLEBONE THE LONDON SHARD EYE THE O X F O R D E D G W A R E B O N D CITY STREET ROAD STREET ——— 3 HYDE PARK SERPENTINE PADDINGTON GREEN KNIGHTSBRIDGE PARK Computer generated image. For indicative purposes only. ——— ——— 3 4 Computer generated image. For indicative purposes only. Meritas is proud to present Paddington Gardens An exceptional new residential development in one of central London’s prestigious regeneration areas in Zone 1. Designed by award-winning Assael Architecture and Powell Dobson Architects, Paddington Gardens occupies a 3.8 acre site within London’s most exciting new residential quarter, the Paddington Waterside regeneration. Overlooking beautiful landscaped gardens, the apartments and penthouses feature floor-to-ceiling windows, bespoke kitchens, engineered wooden flooring and a terrace, balcony or winter garden. Paddington Gardens benefits from a host of amenities to enhance the residents’ lifestyle including a 24 hour concierge service and underground car parking. The towers of Paddington Gardens step up in height towards Regent’s Canal, providing elegant proportions and excellent views across London from the upper floors. The elegantly proportioned façades bring together a mix of stone and glazing to provide as much light as possible, with many apartments benefiting from dual aspects. ——— 6 Lifestyle, comfort and convenience A sense of community is essential to the ethos of Paddington Gardens. The central park to the west provides a wonderful communal garden, while the double-height entrance area allows light to flood in. Security is also a key consideration with a 24 hour concierge service, secure underground parking, CCTV and video door entrance system ensuring that Paddington Gardens is always a safe haven.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Future in Place the Report on Consultation
    THE FARRELL REVIEW of Architecture + the Built Environment OUR FUTURE IN PLACE THE REPORT ON CONSULTATION BY THE FARRELL REVIEW TEAM Contents P.2 INTRODUCTION P.5 TERMS OF REFERENCE P.6 1. EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND SKILLS P.36 2. DESIGN QUALITY P.66 3. CULTURAL HERITAGE P.83 4. ECONOMIC BENEFITS P.113 5. BUILT ENVIRONMENT POLICY P.120 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS THE FARRELL REVIEW THE REPORT ON CONSULTATION 1 Introduction This Review has engaged widely from the start. In that respect it set itself apart from many other government reviews and has been independent in both its methods and its means. Over the last year, the team has reached out and consulted with thousands of individuals, groups and institutions. They have been from private, public and voluntary sectors, and from every discipline and practice relating to the built environment: architecture, planning, landscape architecture, engineering, ecology, developers, agents, policymakers, local government and politicians. “We are the editors and curators in the terms of reference that were issued by the of many voices.” Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) Sir Terry Farrell CBE (see page 5). Over 200 responses were received from individuals, companies, groups and This Report on the consultation process by institutions, with many organising questionnaires the Review team, led by Max Farrell and co- for members representing over 370,000 people. ordinated by Charlie Peel, is a structured narrative of the key themes of the Review, told Third were a series of workshops hosted through the many voices of its respondents and around the country. Each of these workshops participants.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1.Pdf
    APPENDIX 1 Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Community Council Project suggestions for approval S106 CIL Update Greening Tyers estate No - not mitigation Yes St Mary Magdalene Churchyard path to Tanner Street Park to create a path to improve access to/from park. Yes - open space Yes Relocating the traffic lights at the junction of Tanner Street and Tower Bridge Road, to make the junction safer for cyclists and pedestrians. Yes - transport Yes Footway improvements (uneven paving) to Shad Thames, Yes- public realm Yes Environmental improvements to Tower Bridge Road as Yes - public realm, whole transport Yes Likely to be Bermondsey Wall West and Chambers Street footway Yes - public realm, funded in 2014- and carriageway improvements transport Yes 2015 Improved street lighting on Coxon Way Yes- public realm Yes Fountain Green Square - resurfacing and pond improvements. Yes- public open space Yes Lighting on the approaches to the doctor's surgery near St James' Church Yes- public realm Yes Improve lighting, cleaning and pigeon proofing Crucifix Lane railway bridge Yes- public realm Yes Resurface/pave uneven footpath on Clements Road Yes- public realm Yes Bermondsey Community Nursery physical improvements and add accessibility improvements to the nursery Yes -community facilities Yes Old Kent Road flyover, create a New York City “High Line” style park Yes - open space Yes Green links between Russia Dock Woodland and Southwark Park Yes - open space Yes The old Fish Farm nursery, create a ‘green’ walkway through to Southwark Park from the old Fish Farm
    [Show full text]
  • Derwent London Plc Report & Accounts 2006
    Derwent London plc Report & Accounts 2006 Contents 2 Financial highlights 3 Five year review 4 Chairman’s statement 8 Operating review 20 Financial review Financial statements 24 Group income statement 24 Statements of recognised income and expense 25 Balance sheets 26 Group cash flow statement 27 Company cash flow statement 28 Notes to the financial statements 49 Directors’ report 56 Statement of directors’ responsibilities 57 Report on directors’ remuneration 63 Report of the audit committee 64 Report of the nominations committee 65 Independent auditor’s report 67 Directors 68 Five year summary 69 Notice of annual general meeting 71 Financial calendar 71 Advisers Derwent London plc, the company’s new name following the merger of Derwent Valley Holdings plc and London Merchant Securities plc, is a leading central London office specialist with a combined portfolio valued at over £2.5 billion. It is a design-led award-winning property company with a reputation for innovative projects incorporating high quality, contemporary architecture which works closely with leading and emerging architects to create interesting solutions to enhance its schemes. The group invests mainly in the West End but also in those newly improving locations where it perceives future value, bringing quality working environments to its tenants and contributing to London’s regeneration. The board’s strategy is to add value to buildings and sites through creative planning, imaginative design and enterprising lease management. Through this, the aim is to deliver an above
    [Show full text]
  • Bloomsbury Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy
    Bloomsbury Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy Adopted 18 April 2011 i) CONTENTS PART 1: CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 0 Purpose of the Appraisal ............................................................................................................ 2 Designation................................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT ................................................................................................ 4 3.0 SUMMARY OF SPECIAL INTEREST........................................................................................ 5 Context and Evolution................................................................................................................ 5 Spatial Character and Views ...................................................................................................... 6 Building Typology and Form....................................................................................................... 8 Prevalent and Traditional Building Materials ............................................................................ 10 Characteristic Details................................................................................................................ 10 Landscape and Public Realm..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • JUN 06 199 O
    RESIDENTIAL FABRIC AS MEMORABLE CITY FORM: A Study of West London and Bath by Pradeep Ramesh Dalal Dip. Arch., School of Architecture, CEPT. Ahmedabad, India June, 1987 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE STUDIES AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUNE, 1991 @Pradeep Ramesh Dalal 1991. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce and to distribute copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of the Author Pradeep Dalal, Department of Architecture 10 May, 1991 Certified by ulian Beinart Professor of Architecture Thesis Supervisor Accepted by Julian Beinart Committee on Graduate Studies MASSACH.USETTS INSTR TE Chairman, Departmental OF TECHNOLOGY JUN 06 199 o Room 14-0551 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Ph: 617.253.2800 MITLibraries Email: docs@mit.edu Document Services http://libraries.mit.edu/docs DISCLAIMER OF QUALITY Due to the condition of the original material, there are unavoidable flaws in this reproduction. We have made every effort possible to provide you with the best copy available. If you are dissatisfied with this product and find it unusable, please contact Document Services as soon as possible. Thank you. Both the Library and Archives versions of this thesis (Dalal, Pradeep;1991) contain grayscale images only. This is the best available copy. RESIDENTIAL FABRIC AS MEMORABLE CITY FORM: A Study of West London and Bath by Pradeep Ramesh Dalal Submitted to the Department of Architecture on May 15, 1991 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Architecture Studies.
    [Show full text]