Presentations and Commentary The last review concentrated on the planning of Stratford City itself. This time more points were made about the relationship of Stratford City to the Olympics site including comments on:
1. A lack of clarity in the routes leading from Zone 1 to the Olympic site – and vice versa. While the ‘legacy’ mode was illustrated the situation in ‘games’ situation seemed less clear;
2. A tendency to emphasise certain pedestrian routes and to play down others 3. A tendency for routes to ‘walk away’ from what seemed to the panel to be obvious directions of travel between Stratford City and the Olympic area;
4. And at the same time a tendency to create over-literal ‘avenues’ rather than sequences of spaces and unfolding prospects between Stratford City and the Olympic area;
5. A continuing need to adjust the layout of Zone 1 to make best use of the Olympic bridges, which it is assumed will become permanent infrastructure;
6. Doubts were expressed about whether the impact of the changing levels between Stratford City and the Olympic site had been sufficiently [considered].
Similar queries were also made about what exactly would be the pedestrian’s experience of the movement from the Euro Tunnel station into the main shopping area of Stratford City.
Several members of the panel insisted that what was critically important about the Angel Lane site is that it is a vitally important link between Stratford City and the old Stratford town centre and should be much more closely integrated closely in both physical and use terms – especially on the ground plane. Three particular points were made by AL:
1. A much stronger attempt should be made to define the character of this part of Zone 1; 2. It is very important for the Stratford City master planning team to liaise much more closely with his team which was working on the design of the area immediately to the South 3. Post-Olympic blight was a real danger – aspirations for this part of Zone 1 in particular should be kept very high but the Angel Lane proposals so far did not yet seem to be ambitious enough.
4
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142