CO-VISIONING

A common, community, collaborative vision for Silvertown

Quays, Newham.

David McEwen, Risal Ahmed, Ana Puhac, Witee Wisuthumporn, Carlos Urrego, Masae Kuroki,
Vishakha Jha, Aktoty Bigaliyeva
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION Newham, London

Executive Summary
6
8
01

SITE ANALYSIS Landmarks & Urban Fabric

Housing & Dwelling
12
14
02 Open and Public Spaces 16
Thresholds & Leftover Spaces 18
Infrastructure & Mobility 20
Cultures & Economies 22
Existing Visions 24
SWOT Analysis, Synthesis & Reflection 26

STRUCTURAL Vision Statement

Principles & Guidelines
32
34
FRAMEWORK
03

2
DESIGN RESPONSE Overall Strategy
Urban Scale
38
40
04 Theatre Plaza 42
Street Intervention 44
Ground Floor Activities 46
Waterfront Interventions 48
Re-zoning 50
Housing Interventions 52
Stakeholders 54
Constraints & Challenges 56

CONCLUSION Concluding Remarks 60

05

BIBLIOGRAPHY Figures
References
64
66
06

3
INTRODUCTION
This section presents the context and
insights of the proposal.

4
5
SILVERTOWN QUAYS, ROYAL DOCKS 1.1

The Royal Docks, located at the southern part At the heart of the Royal Docks, the Silvertown
of the borough of Newham, and along the Quays today represents an important
Thames river, is the area of east London is the opportunity for the city to open a vibrant and
general study area of this report. Silvertown dynamic space of innovation consisting of
Quays is the specific site of design intervention creative and technological industries from all
of the report. Silvertown Quays is one of over the world. This would boost new social
the sites planned for redevelopment and and economic potentialities at the Docks. As
regeneration. That process was envisioned in the site is also a part of the so-called “arc of
a master plan made by the Mayor of London opportunity”, the area planned for a long-term
and the Newham council for the Royal Docks regeneration vision that aims to enhance the
area. economic and urban development of east
London.
Since its construction in the 19th century,
this area has been a point of connection and Even though this urban regeneration
trade of London with the world. The Mayor unarguably benefits the path towards the
of London, Boris Johnson speaks about the consolidation of London as a world-class
future vision: “We intent to transform the city, it is important highlight the impact
Royal Docks into a world class business center” the proposals might have over the existing
(Mayor of London and Mayor of Newham, communities. Therefore, based on our
2011). The city’s translation and integration previous stage urban analysis this report
of the area’s historical legacy into the future presents some of the alternative strategies
redevelopment omits interpretation of the adopted by our group in order to improve
history which is a heritage of ethnically diverse the future relations among the existing and
working-class, close-knit community and its newcomer communities as well as the urban
relationship to the industrial landscape that dynamics that might happen on the ground.
defined livelihoods in the past.

Fig. 1 - Relationship of Silvertown Quays at different scales

6
Fig. 2 - Photo of Royal Docks

7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.2

This proposal is a co-vision that appropriates

the currently proposed master-plans for
the Royal Docklands and nuances them to
create a more sensitive, people-centred,
diversified and adaptable vision. This vision
is formulated out of a cumulative process of
analysis; a by-product of six-lenses urban
analysis (cultures and economies, landmarks
and urban fabric, open and public spaces,
housing, threshold and leftover spaces,
infrastructure and spaces of mobility) and
SWOT analysis.

The design interventions emerged out of

these analysis is embedded in the core
principles of diversity and connectivity.
These principles are put into practice by
proposed interventions aimed at creating
sense of belonging between the people of
the community and various stakeholders,
identifying the differences and enabling
future adaptability to work towards
commonly shared objective for the area.
Our proposal sees beyond the dichotomy of
“mainstream versus alternative”, in search of
redefining elements that shape a new image
for Silvertown Quays.

8
9
SITE ANALYSIS
This section addresses the
constraints and opportunities
identified in different levels of
analysis.

10
11
LANDMARKS & URBAN FABRIC 2.1

The major disadvantage is that the area is

zoned in monolithic single-type usage zones
like residential, commercial, and cultural.
There is a lack of mixed-use typology thus
making each zone completely disconnected
with one another. It obstructs vibrancy,
accessibility and connectivity within the
area making the everyday life harder for
the residents. The opportunity for the area
hence, would be to reconnect all the adjacent
areas with more diverse and mixed uses, as
well regenerate historical landmarks.

The presence of coarse grains around City Fig. 3 - Urban Fabric Study
airport & ExCel restrict walkability and
pedestrian-friendly use within these areas.
The fine grain is present in the new and old
residential zones, where there were some
traces of vibrancy in terms of activities, as
Cable car, Crystal, walkway to ExCel.

In the critique of landmarks, the analysis

found that there is a discrepancy between
the definition of “iconic” when it comes to
landmarks. Some residents consider the new
buildings like Siemens Crystal and ExCel,
while the others referred to something of
their daily use such as infrastructure (DLR)
or a local pub. The examined theoretical
background like (Rossi, 1966) discern that
architecture of city can be analysed as a
work of engineering virtuousness and as
a compilation of “urban artefacts” when
the city is defined by its own history and
particular form. Kaika (Kaika, 2011) on the
other hand, gives an account of new corporate
Fig. 4 - Timeline of Transformation
architecture being advertised as ‘iconic’
without actually having any communication
with or use for, the general public, which she
calls “autistic architecture”.

12
Fig. 5 - Landmark Map

13
HOUSING & DWELLING 2.2

Housing was prevalent in the Royal docks

area much before the docks were built.
However, the housing pattern in the Royal
Docks through the course of time have
been reorganized and rebuilt mainly due
to the destruction caused by the bombings
in WWII. In the present scenario, four
distinct residential areas can be identified
and each of them having different distinct
characteristics.

1: Extension of Canning Town and Custom

House: They are mostly high-rise residential
areas, mixed with commercial having ample
offices and hotels. Residents in this zone are
mostly rental while those working in offices
commute to Canary Wharf.
2: Britannia Village: This is a villa-based,
multi-storey high-rise apartment with mixed
residential areas, which are smaller in scale
and quieter compared to the other areas
around, with facilities of schools and public
green.
3: Barrier Park East and West: Surrounding
the high quality landscape resources of
Thames Barrier Park, a number of multi-
storied middle and high- class residential
buildings were and are still being built.
4: Extension of North Woolwich: The long-
established residential and industrial
character of North Woolwich limits any
major development to take place around that
area, although there are a number of potential
residential infill sites.

From the analysis it is evident that the

residential areas are not as lively as it could be
mainly due to the lack of connectivity in the
programs and functionality in relation to the
residents. Further, the analysis revealed that
the arrangement of the housing blocks are
mostly enclosed; blocks facing towards inner Fig. 6 - Relationship to Ground Level
courts with their back/side facing towards
public spaces, especially in Britannia Village.

14
Fig. 7 - Housing Characteristics (Residential in Yellow)

15
 OPEN & PUBLIC SPACES 2.3
can be defined as land that is partly or
rubs, or other vegetation in the public and
sideredThe analysis used
a landscape definition
amenity for open and
independently
public spaces following Jones (2014, p.6) Theas pedestrian walkway along the south of
hree of“antheempirically
green surfaces identified
grounded in the of a
understanding
particular set of material spaces that are open
Silvertown Quays presents two very different
Dock tothe
Dock, theThames
public.”Barrier Park and
Park,
One category wassome atmosphere. Walking down Mill Road and with a
also added
for better understanding of the proposed left turn on North Woolwich Road, the first half of
open and public spaces: public areas between the pedestrian walkway leads to the former
ovanaHelena

ng,TerpsiLaopoulou

buildings (as distinguished from parks). Pleasure Gardens Gardens’ site. site This half of the walkway is
udyChen,

equippedFig22.TheRoyalVictoriaDock
with street lights, one bench and one bin
shinedThewith Silvertown
pleasant pedestrian
Quays areafoot walks.
is majorly Taking advantage of the shape of the building (Fig. 59), the area around the
(Fig. 47). This walkway uses trees and the
surrounded by external private spaces which bridge could present itself more attractive if offering greener surfaces, surfaces mainly
are currently under refurbishment topographically
cant space with meadows. During daytime and around the modified space
Seats (ie.the
could be slope)
provided to
onteiro,Ju
u,FrankYYang,Gio

trees (Fig. 60). by these garden structures,

create the impression
rendering of a more
a more welcoming naturalforwalkway
waterfront people to spend time
Figure47 in it. The
Ͳ Streetfurnitureon
wever, restricted in access. Most of the accessible
it suits a comfortable view with the furniture design could follow the one around The Crystal,NorthWoolwichRoad producing a sense of
areas lie in the opposite side of the Quays. (Fig. 48).
u,RuiGen

unity which could be beneficial to the perception of space. Source:JudyChen,29/01/15

deMirrandaMo

hould beThe connection

referred between
as amenity use.the two areas is Tate &
weak with only two bridges linking them.The Thesecond half of the pedestrian walkway (which resident
Thefriendly,
pedestrianand thewalkway along the south of
GiovanaHelena

poulou

pedestrian bridge is not user

i after
is ft presents
passingi two th very
the entrance
t different off the
th Pleasure
Pl 50). Bas
XuyiGu

Yiru Liu

hen,

only one public green space Silvertown Quays

in the proximity, Figure
ated onthe theBarriers
north bank of the Thames and Gardens) presents a very different situation. The particula
o,JudyCh
u Liu,RuiGeng,TerpsiLaop

Park, closes atmosphere.

at dusk. Other Walking down Mill Road and with a Sourc
significant open public spaces, such as thewalkway
arc y gets
g narrower and a drastic change g in
ardens, meadows, a children’sleft playturn
ground on North Woolwich Road, the first half of
nkYang,G

(next to the pedestrian bridge the inpedestrian

the Britanniamaterials can leads
be noticed, in which
formerfences replaces The bas
MirandaMonteiro

walkway to the
ovanaHelena

ng,TerpsiLaopoulou

Village) is underused with

ws of the flood barrier of the Thames. no elements that
treessite.
and This
bushes. locked i
Pleasure The Gardens’
Gardens site half of the walkway is
udyChen,

attract people, which continues to be the contrast

XuyyiGu,Fran

dscape.case
Thewith
GreentheDock equipped
is designed
waterfront walk by with
Alain
in front ofstreet
the lights, one bench and one bin
Village likewise. The urban (Fig.ambience
47). This in thewalkway uses trees and the
deM

en meadows aresuspended
shaped asbetween
green waves Through
Yiru

topographically modified space (ie.the slope) to

onteiro,Ju

area is also the opposites

u,FrankYYang,Gio

Th
The Th
Thames Fig23.TheThamesBarrierPark
B
Barrieri P
Parkk i
is l
locatedt d on th
the northern
th
of extreme noise coming create which a
s. While the groupƵs daytime from visit,the
ittheproximity
wasimpression Figure59Ͳ
of a more
riversideVillage the
natural walkway Figure47
AroundthebridgenearBritannia
of Source:GiovanaMonteiro,19/01/2015.
Thames. The park NorthWoolwichRoad
Ͳ Streetfurnitureon
Figure60Ͳ
close Possibilitiesforaroundthebridge
is Source:Giovana
to Monteiro,08/02/2015.
Figure 48 Ͳ The walkway
to the city airport and the deafening
(Fig. 48). silence playgrou
Silvertown Quays;y ; however, , a main road and DLR leading to Pleasure GardenFigure
u,RuiGen

shaped by its built form and lack of all-

deMirrandaMo

s, jogging and playing soccer. Thus, it seems Source:JudyChen,29/01/15

Source: Judy Chen, 29/01/15 Sourc
day presence in the area (particularly railway
in separate the park from Silvertown Quays.
n. residential part). DevelopmentsThe second half in
currently of the Thepedestrian
contemporarywalkway design of the (which
Thames Barrier Park (Fig. 61) results in one of the
The parkbestis assets
openintothe the public and serves
neighbourhood as a space
and it influences the perception of space in this
progress are putting too is imuchafter
ft emphasis
passing
i ontheth entrance t off the
th Pleasure
Pl
XuyiGu

Yiru Liu

for leisure
area activities.
area. activities
Moreover the noise from the airplanes is not so loud maybe because the part
Moreover,
the design of spaces, not Gardens)
leaving much presents
room a isvery not asdifferent
underneathsituation.
the airplanes The route as the waterfront along Britannia Village
walkway
for appropriation and flexibility. yThegets
g biggest
narrower and a drastic change g in
the east side of Silvertown Q Quays y and it has The park closes at dusk (i.e. on theless
(Fig. 66). To the production of a
time
artificial looking ambience, it would be
of visit ith trees in this
opportunity for revivingmaterials vibrancycan andbe is worthwhile
noticed, h inh lwhich
iff the
h fences
h
homogeneity in the
replaces h disposition
d off the h area off the h
ing an reclamation of waterfront
area of 4900sq.ft. as functional
Alongtrees
the runway, happened
and park to be62)atcould
(Fig. 16:30, and the somehow,
be amended janitor asked maybethe through the addition of some
and bushes.
cultural element, and presence of large open group to p leave
species because
around trees.the park was closing), which
h public
he bli d to
due
spaces. t securityit reasons. suggests there is no evening use. use

B Thei park
Fig.is8 -well
l tdesigned th with
Public spaces around site large open spaces
The Thames
Th Th Barrier P k
Park i located
is d on the northern
th
riverside of thefor leisure
Thames. activities.
The parOne
k unpleasant
is close to feature
Figureof48theͲ The walkway
park is Fig24.LondonCityAirport
that the walkway next to the visitor’s centre Figure49
Silvertown Quays; y ; however,, a main road and DLR leading to Pleasure Garden Ͳ The‘bumpy’road
is remarkably bumpy which Quays.
may be Source:
potentially atThamesBarrierPark
Judy Chen, 29/01/15
railway separate the Figure61Ͳ
park from Silvertown
ThamesBarrierPark Source:JudyChen,29/01/15
The park is openunsafe
to theforpublic
the park
and
Source:Giovana users
serves(Fig.as a49).
space
Monteiro,19/01/2015.
Figure62Ͳ Detailofserviceareas
inBritanniaVillage
Figure6
for leisure activities.
activities Source: Giovana Monteiro,
Source:GiovanaMonteiro,
Figure 50
19/01/2015.
locked in t
Reference:FletcherPriestArchitects(2014).SilvertownQuaysOutlineͲ PlanningApplicationͲ
The park closes at dusk (i.e. on the time of visit it Source: Jud
happened to be at 16:30, and the janitor asked the
16
group to leave because the park was closing), which
suggests there is no evening use.
use
Fig. 9 - Public space study

17
THRESHOLDS & LEFTOVER SPACES 2.4

Thresholds, as defined by Walter Benjamin

(Benjamin, 1985), create permeable
boundaries, which form elements of the urban
fabric. The area of Silvertown Quays contains
many thresholds with the potential to trigger
social mobilisation, acting beyond their
physical nature. These thresholds operate on
a variety of scales, namely the macro, mesa
and micro.

At the widest scale, the area deemed ‘the arc

of opportunity’, stretching from the Olympic
Site in the north to Silvertown Quays, acts as
a threshold, a space between two poles. On the
one hand it can be seen as an area in need for spatial analysis
redevelopment,
m i c r o s c exciting
ale potential investors,
while on the other arepresenting
rea E a barrier Fig. 10 - Arc of Opportunity
(physical, social, political, economical)
existing between those on one side (the east
of London) and central London. Victoria
Dock road forms a threshold between the
city and the site through its transportation
links. Additionally Woolwich Road acts as an
important threshold, dividing the site from
other recent developments.

Within these scales there also exist leftover

spaces: neglected unused spaces that become
barriers through fear or disregard. The
same spaces however provide opportunities,
potentially converting thresholds from
barriers into entry points. The Water Dock
can be deemed a leftover due to a paucity of
activities. At a micro scale, many physical
thresholds exist composed of barriers and
points of transitions, examples of which can
be seen beside.

The key element of this analysis is identifying

these spaces and envisioning their transition
from a leftover or barrier into one of Fig. 11 - Barriers & Spaces of Transition
opportunity to those utilising these spaces.

36

18
 spatial analysis
micro scale

7KHPLFURVFDOHZLOOUHIHUWRWKHXUEDQIDEULFSHFXOLDULWLHVWKDWDUHSHUFHLYHGIURPWKHKXPDQVFDOH
7KLVDWWHPSWZLOOEHSXWLQDFWLRQVSHFLıFDOO\LQWKHDUHDLPPHGLDWHO\DURXQGDQGLQVLGHRXUVSHFLıFVLWH

7KHFKDUDFWHULVWLFRIWKUHVKROGVDQGOHIWRYHUVVKLIWVZKHQORRNHGDWLQWKHPLFURVFDOHDVWKHIXQFWLRQRIHDFKDOWHUVGHSHQGLQJRQ
WKHVLWXDWLRQDQGWKHTXDOLW\RIWKHVSDFHLWIDOOVLQ

7KURXJKWLPHZKHQDQXUEDQWUDQVLWLRQRFFXUVLWIRUPVSK\VLFDOWDQJLEOHDQGFRQFHSWXDOLQWDQJLEOH

HOHPHQWVLQEHWZHHQVSDFHVWKDWDUHVHHQDVWKUHVKROGV7KHVHWKUHVKROGVFDQWDNHWKHIRUPRI
EDUULHUVRUWUDQVLWLRQV

$UHD$ $UHD% $UHD& $UHD' $UHD( $UHD) $UHD*

s p a t i a l a n a l y30s i s
micro scale
area C
Fig. 12 - Meso Scale Analysis of Leftover Spaces

Gates DFWDVSK\VLFDODQGVRFLDOEDUULHUVZKLFKGLYLGHWZRDUHDVFUHDWLQJDOLPLWDQGSURKLELWLQJDFFHVVEHWZHHQRQHDQRWKHU'XHWRWKHLUSHUPHDEOHFKDUDFWHULVWLFWKHLUSUHVHQFHGRHVQRW
VHQGDSRZHUIXOPHVVDJHEHFDXVHDFFRUGLQJWRWKHLUVLWXDWLRQWKH\DUHFDSDEOHRIWUDQVIRUPLQJLQWRGLijHUHQWIXQFWLRQVWKH\FDQDOVREHVHHQDVWKUHVKROGVWKDWDFWDVWUDQVLWLRQV
Fence ş2EVHUYLQJ%ULWDQQLDZHFDPHDFURVVDSOD\JURXQGIRUNLGVWKDWZDVIHQFHGRijDQGKDGQRDFFHVV
Metal structures1RWLQYLWLQJFUHDWHVDEDUULHUIRUDIUHHIJRZLQJWUDQVLWLRQDOVSDFH+ROGVDVWURQJLGHQWLW\VHHQDVDWKUHDW

33

19
INFRASTRUCTURE & MOBILITY 2.5
RIV

EƵ
ƚŚĞ
ŽĨ
Even though 5 stations, located in walkable ƌŝǀĞ
ŽĨ
distance (8-12 minutes) from Silvertown ďĂŶ
ĂĐƌ
Quays, enhance mobility from other parts of ďĂŶ
ĂƌĞ
London, ground level mobility infrastructure
is not active since the area is focused on ŵ
Ž
motorized transportation. In addition, ŵŝ
dŚĞ
psychological barriers for pedestrians not to ^ŝŶ
walk around the area derive from the dearth 
KLJ
of safe crossings regulated by traffic lights,
SILVERTOWN QUAYS


empty streets, security issues, and invisibility 

of pedestrian routes.
CHAPTER 01 GENERAL CONTEXT

tŽ
ƚŽ

Airport is a contributor of neoliberal markets

and international investment in the area
since 64% of its users coming for the business-
HISTORY AND CONTEXT

related trips for the financial-commercial

districts such as the City and Canary Wharf.
This phenomena has also created the interest
of new upscale private accommodations, such
as Britannia Village.

The local residents in the area have to

travel more distance for their most basic
requirements, such as grocery shopping. The Water routes near the site

map indicates that “the most significant space Fig. 13 - Water Network
of consumption is the ExCel Center, which
caters mostly to tourists and Londoners from
other boroughs” and inflow of capital by the 14

residents is limited to certain areas.

Fig. 14 - Pedestrian & Vehicular Mobility Study

20
Fig. 15 - Investment Flows

21
CULTURES & ECONOMIES 2.6

The analysis of Royal Docks through the

lens of economics and culture contests and 12

challenges the current visionary proposals

imposed for the site. These proposals are
ignorant of the understandings of who really
the people of Newham are and their needs.
It seems evident that the people of Newham
are either missing from global ambitions
of Silvertown Quays or are narrowed to
just being marginalised. The heritage and
memory associated with the site is used as
just a gateway of commerce and capitalism in
these visions. Whereas, the people of Newham
possessing great assets in terms of culture,
diversity skills and experience have different
expectations and needs from the area. In this
process of reconstructing and redeveloping
the area, it is essential for this diversity and
experience to be addresses and channelised Fig. 16 - Actors shaping local culture
in the process of design.

The focus of the proposal should tackle the

dichotomy of global versus the local thus
leading to a process which reflects the type
of societies people of Newham want to build
or create rather than mere impositions of
globalised ideas.

Fig. 17 - Social & Economic Facilities in Newham

Social & Economic Facilities in Newham || Compared to other centres of socio-economic activities in Newham, the Royal Docks is lagging behind and an obvious opportunity for development (Diagram powered by Forsquare)

22
Fig. 18 - Economic Spaces

23
EXISTING VISIONS 2.7
Our vision for the future of the Royal Docks
is underpinned by a clear ten-point strategy. In order
to unlock the area’s full potential we pledge to:

Vision for the Royal Docks: Mayor of London

6
and Mayor of Newham (March 2011) 1

Develop the Royal Docks as a Exploit the potential for a

As mentioned in the vision that the Royal world-class business destination visitor and tourist economy
within the knowledge economy
Docks is seen as an ideal place for leisure and
business destination and as stated aims to
“redefine the Royal Docks not as somewhere 7
2
at the edge of the city but as a place with its
Create a unique and high quality
own centre of gravity and a clear identity of Promote the Royals Docks as a focus for waterfront urban quarter
its own”. They intend to revive the vitality, investment on a world stage building on with a strong sense of place
opportunities presented by the 2012 Games
entrepreneurship and wealth creation of
the dock area which would play a vital role
in the future economy. Expressing their
8
visions by emphasizing on it as a business 3

centre and visualizes the waterfront as a hub Make the Royal Docks a Improve cross-river and
local connectivity
of activity which will offer as an example for place of choice to live

a sustainable world city which would be “an

outstanding place to live, work, play and stay”
(Royal Docks, p.8). 4 9

Champion green enterprise and

In the local movement and infrastructure environmental sustainability
Communicate openly
and clearly
projects, the site specified to us is seen as
a “focus on ExCel East potential hotel and
leisure zone” (Royal Docks, p.45). Hence they
are more focused on ExCel and highlighting it 5 10

rather than using this site as an opportunity Ensure that development Make it happen
to connect and allowing the local community positively benefits
the local communities
to prosper from the development.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson made

16
a deal with The Silvertown Partnerships for
the development of the Silvertown Quays in
the Royal Docks. They tend to transform this
area into a brand destination, which will lead
to new innovation, creativity and learning, Fig. 19 - Ten Point Vision for Royal Docks 17

hence connecting to the global world and its

audience, as well as boosting UK’s economy.
An outline planning application was
submitted to the London Borough of Newham
in July 2014 by the Silvertown Partnerships,
based on the outline we found their visions
and approaches for the development.

24
 Vision for Silvertown Quays

- Silvertown Quays has the potential to

become one of London’s most striking new
urban centres.
- Part of the city that encourage interaction,
innovation and exploration
- Silvertown Quays will become a new home,
workplace and destination for thousands of
people, and will also become the focus for the
rapidly emerging transformation of the wider
Royal Docks
- Seeking to create an urban brand district for
london

The approaches taken follows some key

qualities for projects:
- an authentic new district of London
- incredible history as a place engaged with
the world
- superb urban and global connectivity
- real part of the city
- offers more, for less
- place to perform and a destination to
experience performance
- flexible and adaptable
- expresses the identity
- a place for talent
- real and happening

Fig. 20 - Illustrations of Silvertown Quays Future Development

25
 - Waterfront: in summer, many visitors come
for water related events and sports. Water
itself attracts people.
- Modernness of the area: Visitors and
residents say that this regenerated area is

W
very nice.
- Close to leisure areas and Canary Wharf: O2
and ExCeL are the main reason of visitors and
many development has been focused in the
West. Visitors can use the cable car, bridge
and tube to access the Royal Dock.
- History: the area has unique history as a WEAKNESSES
dock.
- Cable car: many visitors say that they would
not come to the area if there is not the cable
car from O2. It also becomes the landmark.
- Waterfront : Attractive visually

S
- Upcoming development of crossrail and other
housing: Most residents are happy and aware
about the upcoming projects.
- History : The historic significance sets an
identity to the place/built historical legacy
-Transport infrastructure (connectivity)
-Relationship to water

- Fragmented spaces and usage: Division of

construction, residents and leisure area and
existence of barriers create a sense of segre-
gation.
- Hard accessibility: Hard to walk around the
huge area and 56% of car ownership
- Lack of Liveliness: Not many people are
around throughout the day, which discourage
residents to walk around the area
- Lack of shopping area: There is only a Tesco
shop for grocery shopping and other shop-
pings.
-Industrial area:it disturbs landscape and
STRENGTHS does not attract people to visit
- Lack of community sense in the area
- Lack of community spaces
- Unsafe(as complaint by few residents)
- Unaffordability: People living there do not
have jobs within and people working in the
area cannot afford to live in that area
- Exclusion/Segregation through physical bar-
riers: e.g. gates, barbed wire, fences, roads
without pedestrian access.
- Disappearance/Erosion of valued land-
marks from the urban fabric: i.e. pubs, local
newsagents, take-away shops.
- Proximity to the airport: noise, interruption
of fabric, safety issues
- Lack of incentive for engagement and appro-
priation of space

26
- Airport: 64% of user of the airport is related
to business. Opportunities for bringing
international investment, new residents

T
from the world, and tourists.
- Easy accessibility from Pontoon Dock
station: Since the study site is in front of
Pontoon Dock station, if the development can
start around station and the study site, it will
attract more people.
- Waterfront: The study site faces to water THREATS
land it has decks inside as well. Utilize the
unique design of the study site. Reclamation
of waterfront as functional and cultural
element.
- Landmarks: the study site has three

O
landmarks: The Mills, Silot ‘D’ and SS Robins.
National Lottery funds and the government
have been making efforts to conserve these
landmarks.
- Expanded transport opportunities via Cross
Rail.
- Presence of open large spaces.

- Ethnic Diversity: Less percentage of

residents in Royal Dock feel that people
respect ethnic differences(compared to
Newham average).
- Safety: The main problems are identified
as teenagers hanging around on the streets/
intimidating group behavior (60%), litter/
rubbish (44%).Less percentage of residents in
Royal Dock feel safe being outside or at parks
during the day and after dark.
- Unaffordable housing: Many employees in
the area are coming from outside due to its
high rent. The development of the study site
may influence on price of housing rent.
OPPORTUNITIES - Connection to the water being lost: new
development does not take into account the
historical significance.
- Exclusion through physical barriers: e.g.
gates, barbed wire, fences.
- Disappearance/Erosion of valued
landmarks from the urban fabric: i.e.
pubs, local newsagents, take-away shops.
Also, disappearance of public space via
privatisation.
- Economic and commercial pressures on the
public realm: Developments putting too much
emphasis on the design of spaces, leaving not
much room for appropriation / flexibility.
- Current fragmentation of public realm: an
issue difficult to be overcome

27
SYNTHESIS & REFLECTION 2.9

The six lenses of urban analysis followed The main strength of the Royal dockyards
by our SWOT analysis reveals a neoliberal is the historical significance associated
approach to development which is capital- with it and its proximity to the water. The
driven, producing a globalised imagery for strong connectivity of the site with the
the area while excluding the involvement of surrounding areas through public transport
people in planning process. and upcoming projects like crossrails adds
to the identity of the area. The availability of
The main drawbacks in the area are erosion of open and ground spaces can be channelised
community life that existed in the times when to produce diversified functions reactivating
the docks were operating, the interruption of those spaces over time and integrating the
livelihoods by the noise coming from the city fragmented zones currently existing in the
airport, lack of pedestrian connectivity, and area. The existing landmarks on the site have
a lack of local neighborhood spaces such as the potential to produce a historical narrative
pubs, local newsagents and take-away shops. for the area and its association with water. The
These drawbacks are further threatened by relationship with the waterfront is identified
unpredictable changes in political mandates as a key element is shaping and appropriating
in municipality and council. Likewise, a different perspective for the site.
the government’s mandates which should
prioritize majority’s needs are compromised
by economic pressures which results in
disproportionate economic benefits being
delivered only to some areas. These kind of
redevelopments only perpetuate Newham’s
underlying weaknesses, particularly its deep
social inequality.

28
29
STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK
This section presents the alternative
vision and principles guiding our
proposal.

30
31
VISION STATEMENT 3.1

In the light of the current mainstream plans narrativization of the instituted power of
for the Silvertown Quays that envisions to corporations, a state and a city in general.
give Newham a high-tech, commercial, global The language and imagery of architecture
and business-oriented imagery, our response is also a tool for constituting this symbolic
tweaks that vision into one that: authority as real and material, it is “a means
of teaching society what to desire and how to
a. expresses greater sensitivity for servicing desire it” (Žižek, 1989). Diversification of
social diversity services, functions and access (i.e. range of
b. enables social cohesion housing affordability, mixed zoning and floor
c. integrates itself with more attention to usage, small- medium-big businesses, less-
connectivity of the urban fabric prescribed spaces) will not compromise the
d. respects the meaning of local history anticipated investments and profits. Rather,
e. respects human connection to natural the spaces and facilities will be used by not
elements in the area (i.e. the water). only more diverse groups, but more people
in general. In this nuanced vision which sees
Our vision mediates the current proposals and beyond the dichotomy of “mainstream vs.
fuses certain elements from the developers’ alternative”, Silvertown Quays is the most
master-plans with those of the alternative, vibrant hub of Newham and finally, the city of
people-centred vision. We believe that London.
Silvertown Quays can spearhead progressive
and tech-savvy development while servicing
diverse social groups (in terms of income,
gender, ethnic background, ability, interest,
age, physical ability, resident/non-resident
etc) and embodying imagery that reflects
the rich ethnic and industrial heritage of
the docks. The creation of imagery is crucial
for the redevelopment of an area because
the language of architecture is more than

32
33
PRINCIPLES & GUIDELINES 3.2

Through the reflections of the SWOT analysis, PHYSICAL

CONNECTIVITY
there are two main issues that need to be
addressed through our design response ; the 1) Create pedestrian pathways and alter bike
issues of connectivity, both physical and social lanes to allow for connectivity
and the issue of diversity in the area.
2) Define clear entry points for the site and
Connectivity refers to the creation of develop nodes
networks at different scales to connect the
site from within as well as at the urban 3) Encourage temporary reuse (pop-up,
scale, both physically and socially. Physical events) of or around empty/unused buildings
connectivity relates to the linking of existing (historical/landmark).
nodes and potential nodes to create network
through mainly infrastructure while social 4) Enhance accessibility of waterfront
connectivity refers to the creation and (reconnecting people to the water through
reconfiguration of masses(spaces) to enact leisure and recreational activities)
social change or evoke the possibility of
change. This principle can be put into practice 5) Develop ground-level activities (
with small interventions at different scales Strengthen existing elements, horizontal,
that build upon creating sense of belonging human scale interaction with space)
between the people of the community,
between different communities and between 6) Develop/Fortify connection to River
stakeholders and the community. Thames

7) Establish smoother transition between

public/private spaces

SOCIAL

1) Create community spaces/platforms where

people can engage

2) Eliminate existing physical barriers that

lead to social segregation where possible
(limited access to riverfront, walls, barbed
wire, etc.)

3) Enhance/Appropriate use of existing public

spaces (through recreation, entertainment,
leisure, education)

4) Provide shared facilities (sports,

recreation, education, etc.) open to all.

34
 1) Promote diverse opportunities for housing Embracing diversity relates to the
DIVERSITY

(typology/affordability) in relation to the appreciation of the diverse population and

master plan (income diversity) activities that exists in the area and generating
the possibility of creating more opportunities
2) Provide platform for residents to involve to enhance this diversity. It is not just limited
them in the planning processes (diversity of to population but also reflected in activities,
interest) events and job opportunities. This principle
can be put into practice by interventions
3) Keep flexible spaces to allow for diversity aimed at identifying the differences and
of uses (in terms of users and programs) over enabling future adaptability to work towards
time. a commonly shared goal or objective for the
area.
4) Prioritize job opportunities enhancing and
reconfiguring the economic dynamics.

5) Support networks of local consumption

and production. Create better accessibility to
daily basic needs and amenities.

35
DESIGN INTERVENTION
This section presents the strategies
developed for our proposal.

36
37
OVERALL STRATEGY 4.1

Our strategy comprises of a series of

smaller interventions projected onto
the existing master plan. We start with
identifying elements that we find relevant
within the existing master plans, and from
there we propose the modification and
reconceptualization of those elements to
comply with our principles of increasing
social diversity and connectivity. Since the
proposed master plans by Newham council
and GLA are utilized as a backdrop and a
reference, a part of our strategy is to work
with and from the existing mainstream
vision, rather than creating a new one from
scratch. We believe that this approach will
not be ignorant to the fact that inclusion of
investment-led developments is as necessary
for infrastructure as is consideration of
social diversity and cohesion. However, it is
important to highlight through this approach
that rebuilding the master plan vision puts
diverse people’s needs at the centre of the plans
and the element of attracting investment into
the area should not by any means compromise
on either of our principles of connectivity and
diversity.

Fig. 20 - Conceptual Materplan

38
39
URBAN SCALE 4.2

One of the key issues in the redevelopment of

Silvertown Quays is that it could potentially
disrupt the surrounding urban fabric, and
perpetuate the pattern zonal division that
characterized the greater Royal Docks area
by means of the massive industrial blocks and
the channel that were not meant to respond
the pedestrian connectivities.Therefore the
plan will have to be attentive to how the new
activities, pathways and spaces will attract
and provide access from anyone coming and
moving within the area.

Since one of the principles is connectivity,

we want to underline the relevance of active
nodes that the plan will bring to enhance its
potentialities to integrate the multiple users.
By generating links at both far and close
distances taking advantage of the multiple Fig. 22 - Disruption Diagram
transport connections, new patterns of
displacement among the area, will possibly
stimulate a diverse range of ways of living and
enjoying the place.

Rather than specify where exactly the nodes

should be and what kind of activity/spaces
they will be, the conceptual diagram aims to
visualise how the nodes will greatly contribute
to the character of connectivity.

Fig. 23 - Prospective Fluxes Diagram

40
Fig. 24 - Entry Points Diagram

Fig. 25 - Expected Networks

41
THEATRE PLAZA 4.3

EXISTING VISION

The plaza is designed such that the first

impressions are gained for those arriving
via the bridge across Royal Victoria Dock.
The plaza is welcoming, and is has elements
of built and natural forms; it is a landscape
where water and green are provided in
continuity along the dock’s edges (Silvertown
partnership, 2014). However, the accessibility
to the plaza is quite restricted and enclosed
due to the scale and form of the surrounding
buildings.
Fig. 26 - Area of Intervention
OUR VISION

The intervention aims to re-dimension the

use of public space integrating it to the urban
fabric through improvement of pathways and
functionalities around the plaza and creation
of new strategic diverse connections. The
intervention has dual purpose of increasing
visibility and accessibility of the plaza and
making it more active throughout the year .

Increasing visibility and accessibility of the

plaza can be done by connecting it to the
different squares and nodes within the area
through walkways and pathways. This will
draw people from all over the area of different
ethnicities enhancing the diversity that exists
in the area. The removal of the floating block
around the plaza and keeping the plaza more
connected to the water further increases the
visibility of the plaza.

Simultaneously, the intervention looks at

providing the possibility of multifunctional
events such as markets, cultural festivals,
fairs for the plaza to keep it activated and more
inviting for different groups of residents. The
linking of the plaza with the activities carried
out by and for the schools and youth centres
around the area through the young mayor
(the school contacts the mayor and conducts
activities and projects) can further make the
plaza more usable.
Fig. 27 - Increasing Visibility and Accessibility

42
Fig. 28 - Activating the plaza through events

19 FEB

11 OCT

15 NOV

25 DEC

Fig. 29 - Embracing Ethnic Diversity

43
STREET INTERVENTION 4.4

EXISTING VISION

Routes and connections in the master plan

are based on the principle of creating “a clear
and coherent network, connecting with the
surrounding pattern of streets and spaces,
establishing a hierarchy of movement for
pedestrians, cycles and vehicles across the
site” (Silvertown partnership, 2014, p.75).
As the proposed site route hierarchy map
demonstrates, the site is divided by roads,
which surround large buildings. Buildings
along the major roads are dominated by
offices and exclusive brand shops especially
around Millennium Mills and D Silo area.
These areas may only attract higher income
groups and would deprive local residents Fig. 30 - Area of Intervention
from using the area on a daily basis.

OUR VISION

Our idea is to break the monotony of high end

exclusive building blocks and make it more
inclusive for other users by creating side
roads next to the main streets. Even though
the plan considers high proportion of active
ground floor use, it is mainly for brands,
food and beverage facilities. We suggests to
include smaller access roads to invite more
small and low scale shops for local residents’
daily needs and local economy to flourish. In
addition, not to perish historical legacy of
the Royal Dock through this development, we
Fig. 31 - Existing examples of Street Activity
suggests street landscape and architecture
at some parts of the site to reflect the image
of a port city instead of filling with modern
buildings without any connection of local
context.

44
Fig. 32 - Introduction of Smaller Scale Facilities

Fig. 33 - Breaking monotony of Urban Fabric

45
GROUND FLOOR ACTIVITIES 4.5

EXISTING VISION

A prominent public open space is proposed to

be located to the east of the waterfront aimed
at generating activities that encourage ground
floor public use (cafes, restaurants and bars)
along with leisure and recreational activities
or “cultural facilities” that could add life to
the area especially in the evening (Silvertown
partnership, 2014). Thus, with these designed
built blocks for leisure activities, the site is
anticipated to have an increased usage within
the public realm. However, the defined and
rigid functionality of the buildings around
the plaza restricts the movement of the
people outside onto the plaza. The activities Fig. 34 - Area of Intervention
proposed in those buildings would keep the
people involved in closed spaces and thus
leaving the people with no incentive to use
open spaces.

OUR VISION

Our intervention introduces small scale shops

and activities along the streets, connecting
the commercial hub and the plaza. This has
dual purpose, as this connection on one side
breaks the monotony of high end shops of the
commercial hub and at the same time opens
up the movement from the retail block on to
the plaza. Thus, the intervention is intended
to activate the plaza through the designing
and introduction of these ground activities.

46
Fig. 35 - Activation of Ground Floor Space

Fig. 36 - Increased Plaza Usability

47
WATERFRONT INTERVENTIONS 4.6

EXISTING VISION

In the masterplan, the waterfront was

discussed with the residents and responded
with ensuring accessibility to the public
(Silvertown partnership, 2014, p.58). Even
though the existing plan emphasizes the
relationship to water, the idea of waterfront
is exploited merely as beautification for
the area, which are means for commercial
usage to attract people. Similarly to the
Acoustic park, which is built to attract
joggers and bikers, rather than utilizing
that space for more (diverse) activities. The
only “activities” considered by masterplan
are food and beverage facilities (Silvertown
partnership, 2014, p.202, p. 209). In addition, Fig. 37 - Area of Intervention
the pavement around the water is too narrow
and compact, which prevents people from Mills. We believe the Theatre Plaza can be a
developing a connection with the natural cultural hub and it could prove an attractive
environment and generate more activity. location for the site. Also based on heritage,
it is important to preserve the waterbody as
OUR VISION it is part of the historic Finger Docks and the
Pontoon Dock.
We propose a connection of the site to the
wider city-wide cycle networks (London Cycle Although there is a pedestrian connection
Network). There is one connecting Stratford from west to east, from the Millenium Mills
to Aldgate, we propose a connection with till the end of the Acoustic Park, along the
the Borough of Newham. In addition, it is waterfronts, we suggest that there should
promoting TfL “Quietways” which are cycle be a continuation of the cycle routes along
routes on routes with low volumes of traffic. this path using the public footpath. Also
There are 7 “Quietways” planned, one of them referring again to generating more cultural
Aldgate to Hainault - first phase Whitechapel activities and using the public space as a
to Fulwell Cross (Tower Hamlets, Newham, means to promote more interaction within
Redbridge, Hackney, and Queen Elizabeth the diverse community. The master plan
Olympic Park ) (TfL, 2014) our proposal will and the design need to be revised to use the
just boom cyclists into Royal Docks. public space of the Millenium Mills, Dock
Our vision suggests the removal of the Side, Pontoon Dock Square and the Acoustic
“floating” pavillion structures and protect the Park to accommodate more opportunities to
existing waterfront dock area. The “floating” take place that would create a space beyond
pavillion structures are mainly trading houses that for a walk or views. The activities would
and is the focus of the Dock District with be decided based on community engagement
six to seven storeys in height, (Silvertown in a larger context that would encourage
Partnership, 2014), we believe it would create people to spend more time here. The site
a barrier and disrupt the connection of the should promote diverse cultural activities to
Theatre Plaza, the water and the Millenium attract people of all ages, creating more than
a business brand centre.

48
Fig. 38 - Integration to existing routes

Fig. 39 - Relationship of path to waterfront

49
RE-ZONING 4.7

EXISTING VISION

The existing plan encourages mixed-usage

within buildings. For example, Millennium
Mills is proposed to be used for retail on the
ground floor and offices and residential on
the upper floors. However, the plan keeps the
problematic fragmentation of land usage,
which is identified as one of weak aspects
prevalent in the Royal Dock. As demonstrated
by the planned zonification map, the site
is divided by large blocks of trade houses,
commercial and residential usage. This
zonification plan might further increase
fragmentation within the area disconnecting
the people. Fig. 40 - Relationship of path to waterfront

OUR VISION

The aim of our intervention for this area

is to break the fragmented pockets of land
usage in order to integrate different usages
of land in order to unify the area. Mix-land
usage would motivate residents and visitors
to use the area more creating liveliness in
the whole area. Moreover, the design and
architecture of built form should focus on
creating more diverse housing forms rather
than replicating typical built blocks like
Britannia Village where all the residential
blocks look identical. The architecture,
also needs to be context- sensitive by using Fig. 41 - Breaking the Monotony of Land Use
appropriate materials which highlights the
significance and association with the river.
These considerations would increase the
vibrancy and redefine urban dynamics in the
area.

50
Fig. 42 - Context Sensitive Architectural Response

51
HOUSING INTERVENTIONS 4.8

EXISTING VISION One of the key element for successful

negotiation for affordable housing is stronger
The existing plan proposes 300,000 square bargaining position of the authority (Farthing
meters of residential zone serving 3,000 and Ashley, 2010). Having affordable housing
residential units, and 15 -20 % of them statement of Silvertown Quays does not
subject to viability (Silvertown partnership, guarantee affordable housing in the area
2014). As per the vision, a variety of housing since the actual power of the implementation
and tenure will be offered in this area. of affordable housing depends on the
Currently, the housing analysis highlights 4 negotiation between developers and the
zones of residential areas, which are mainly council. Therefore, strong position of the
for middle and low-income families. The council needs to be maintained for affordable
Floating village project is concentrated on housing. In order to support the success of
luxury housing, which is a part of the ‘Big negotiation, we recommend the following
Vision’. Strategies will be developed to enable actions: establishing policy which back up the
cosmopolitan neighbourhoods that build negotiation, increasing the land ownership
on the vibrancy and cultural diversity of its of the local authority and suggesting shared
existing communities. ownership of tenure with developers
(Farthing and Ashley, 2010;Burgess and
OUR VISION Monk, 2007).

Even though a wide range of housing type

and prices are proposed in the existing
vision, the local need of the area is to have
more affordable housing( as figured through
our interviews). We predict that housing
price of the area will become extremely high
through the redevelopment since the average
housing has already increased almost 8 times
from 2000 to 2014, starting from 40000£
roughly to 300000£ in the area (DPU, 2015a).
Based on this analysis, we propose to reduce
extensive development which results in
housing price becoming affordable for only a
certain group. Also, there is a need for more
space for negotiation on the percentage to be
reserved for affordable housing. We propose
to increase the ratio of affordable housing to
20%.

52
Fig. 43- Existing vs Proposed Affordable Housing

53
STAKEHOLDERS 4.9

54
55
CONSTRAINTS & CHALLENGES 4.10

The biggest challenge in the process of

designing for the area is to obtain a balance
between the capital-driven approach of
the developers and our understanding of
the need-based design intervention for
the area.The downside to this approach
is that it has the potential to perpetuate
the existing problem by addressing those
problems rather than overcoming them.
Our design intervention, emerging out of
developer’s shared visions, reduces the scope
of more creative and bold alternative design
proposals. This means that the element of
experimentation and potential discovery
of novel approaches is limited and reduced
to a more conventional practice approach.
However, we still chose this approach
because we recognize the value of breaking
unhelpful dichotomies of extreme alternative
and mainstream approaches. The challenge
is further extended by the inability to control
the ongoing development projects and their
implications on the area.

56
57
CONCLUSION
This section reflects on our design
process and proposal.

58
59
CONCLUDING REMARKS 5.1

Through our analysis, it was evident that The biggest challenge in this process is
the urban regeneration projects envisioned to obtain a balance between the capital-
for the Royal Docklands by the mayor of driven approach of the developers and
London and Newham council paves the path our understanding of the need-based
for London as a world class city. However, design intervention for the area. However,
our essential concern was to appropriate through our interventions working towards
and nuance these proposals towards a more developing connectivity within communities
sensitive, people-centered, diversified and and with the stakeholders along with
adaptable vision with an aim to improve the embracing diversity, we can overcome these
future relations amongst the existing and challenges to create a more diverse and
upcoming communities as well as shaping livable place while generating a new imagery
the urban dynamics for the area. for the area.

Our design response, as detailed in the

previous sections, is driven by the core
principles of enhancing physical and social
connectivity along with embracing diversity
within the area. Through these proposals our
aim is to develop a sense of place between
the visitors, local communities and the
stakeholders. These interventions channelise
the development towards a new imagery for
the area — not a “brand image” imposed by
the developers, but a one that is emerged out
of the needs of the people living and using the
area, promoting diverse culture and better
connectivity.

60
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY

62
63
FIGURES 6.1

1. Relationship of Silvertown Quays at 31. Existing examples of street activities

different scales 32. Introduction of small scale facilities
2. Image of Royal Docks 33. Breaking monotony of urban fabric
3. Urban fabric study of the area (DPU, 2015e) 34. Area of intervention : ground floor
4. Timeline of transformation (DPU, 2015e) activities
5. Landmarks in the area (DPU, 2015e) 35. Activation of ground floor space
6. Relationship of built form to the ground 36. Increased plaza usability
level (DPU, 2015a) 37. Area of intervention : waterfront
7. Housing characteristics (DPU, 2015a) 38. Integration to existing routes
8. Public spaces around the site (DPU, 2015d) 39. Relationship of the path to the waterfront
9. Public space study (DPU, 2015d) 40. Existing zoning
10. Arc of opportunity (DPU, 2015c) 41. Breaking the monotony of land-use
11. Spaces of transition (DPU, 2015c) 42. Context-sensitive architectural response
12. Meso scale analysis of left over spaces 43. Existing versus proposed affordable
(DPU, 2015c) housing
13. Water connection (DPU, 2015b)
14. Pedestrian and vehicular mobility study
(DPU, 2015b)
15. Investment flows (DPU, 2015b)
16. Actors shaping local culture (DPU, 2015)
17. Social and economic facilities in Newham
(DPU, 2015)
18. Economic spaces (DPU, 2015)
19. The ten point vision for Royal docks
20. Illustrations of Silvertown Quays future
development
21. The conceptual master plan
22. Disruption diagram
23. Prospective fluxes diagram
24. Entry points diagram
25. Expected network
26. Area of intervention : Proposed plaza as
per the existing vision
27. Increasing visibility and accessibility
28. Activating plaza through events and
activities
29. Embracing ethnic diversity
30. Area of intervention : proposed diagonal
street

64
65
REFERENCES 6.2

Literature references Lathouri,M. (2011). The City as a Project.

Types, Typical Objectives and Typologies.
Anker,A. (1996).ii Papa e el Duce:Sixtus V’s Architectural Design. 81 (1) Special Issue:
and Mussolini’s plans for Rome, capital of the Typolgical Urbanism: Projective Cities.
world/ Journal of Urban Design, 1 (2). 165-
178. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City.
Cambridge Massachussetts:MIT Press.
Aureli, P.V, (2011). City as Political Form.
Four Archetype of Urban Transformation. Rossi A.,1966. The Architecture of the City.
Architectural Design, 81 (1) Special Issue: New York: MIT Press.
Typolgical Urbanism: Projective Cities. Transport for London (TfL). (2014) First
Quietways to open early next year. [oniline].
Burgess,G. and Monk,S.(2007). How local [Assessed 3 March 2015]. Available from:
palnning authorities are delivering policies http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-
for affordable housing. [Online]. [Acessed releases/2014/december/first-quietways-to-
11 March 2015]. Available from: http://www. open-early-next-year
jrf.org.uk/publications/how-local-planning-
authorities-are-delivering-policies- Žižek,S. 1989. The Subline Object of Ideology.
affordable-housing New York:Verso

Grahame Shane,D. (2011). Transcending

Type: Designing for Urban Complexity.
Architectural Design, 81 (1) Special Issue:
Typolgical Urbanism: Projective Cities.

Farthing, S. and Ashley, K. (2002).

Negotiations and the Delivery of Affordable
Housing through the English Planning
System. Planning Practice & Research.
[Online]. Volume 17(1), p.45-58. Available
from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
pdf/10.1080/02697450220125078

Kaika, M., (2011). Autistic architecture: the

fall of the icon and the rise of the serial object
of architecture. Environment and Planning
D: Society and Space, Vol.29 (6), 968-992.

66
Official documents DPU. (2015d). Urban Analysis for Royal
Docks and London Dockland- Open and
Silvertown Paternewship. (2014). Slivertown Public Spaces
Quay Outline planning application Design
and Access statement. [Online]. [Accessed DPU. (2015e). Urban Analysis for Royal
10 Febuary 2013]. Available from: https:// Docks and London Dockland - Urban Fabric
pa.newham.gov.uk /online-applications/ and Landmarks
applicationDetails.do?activeTab
=documents&keyVal=N8UQJOJY06V00

Mayor of London and Mayor of Newham.

(2011). Royal Docks. [Online]. Second
edition. [Accessed 10 Febuary 2013].
Available from: http://www.newham.gov.uk
/Documents/Environment%20
a n d % 2 0 p l a n n i n g /
RoyalDocksAVisionfortheRoyalDocks[1].pdf

Urban analysis reports

DPU. (2015). Urban Analysis of Royal

Docks and London Dockland - Culture and
Economies

DPU. (2015a). Urban Analysis of Royal

Docks and London Dockland - Housing and
Dwellings

DPU. (2015b). Urban Analysis of Royal Docks

and London Dockland - Infrastructure and
spaces of (im) Mobility

DPU. (2015c). Urban Analysis for Royal

Docks and London Dockland- Linkage
between Thresholds and Leftovers

67