Email: team@chelseabarrackspartnership.com
Freephone: 0800 027 6069
Post: Soundings, 148 Curtain Road, London, EC2A 3AT
To begin, we would like you to consider the overall approach to design. There are three broad options - a masterplan led approach, an architectural approach and a hybrid of the two:
Please click to select your preferred option
potential urban blocks
potential architectural forms
existing urban blocks
This option follows a plan led approach which considers the layout and definition of streets, public spaces, land uses, form and massing ahead of architectural detail. This approach helps to knit in the new neighbourhood and to clearly define public and private spaces.
Option B suggests an approach that is more concerned with the arrangement of discrete buildings on the site and not so much the spaces between them. The mansion block provides the basic model for this. The approach concentrates on the architecture of the buildings rather than the types and forms of space generated by their layout.
Option C proposes a combined approach that considers the public realm while configuring discrete buildings and blocks around it. This offers the potential of forming a legible and integrated neighbourhood in which some buildings are given a special architectural significance.
In this theme we will look at a range of options for the types and locations of public space and possible `desire lines` between them. (Note - desire lines are routes of movement that feel intuitively right and which connect various destinations such as public spaces, community facilities and special buildings):
Public open space
Option A suggests a fairly major public space that has the potential to include a retained or reconfigured chapel. The space could offer a busy square at the intersection of various routes and desire lines.
Option B outlines the possibility of defining a range of informal, more intimately scaled public spaces on the margins of the site.
Option C proposes an array of public and/or semi public spaces along a central, East-West axis bisected by a main North-South Ranelagh Grove route.
Option D suggests that the public realm is mostly offered in the form of a new, green strip along Chelsea Bridge Road which reflects Ranelagh Gardens. This option may result in a corresponding reduction in public space elsewhere.
In this theme we would like you to consider non residential buildings, what they could be and where they could be located. Current suggestions include a sports hall, a community hall, a health facility and creche, convenience food shopping, restaurants, cafes, shops and a hotel.
Option A suggests that non- residential facilities are clustered at the heart of the new neighbourhood accessed via a new North- South spine route or a large public space. This option could provide a lively new square at the heart of the scheme but economically efficient phasing could be an issue and facilities might not be as accessible as they would be at the edge of the site.
Option B suggests that the facilities should be arranged around the margins of the site. This would both benefit existing communities and help to stitch the area together socially while providing a calm residential interior.
Option C proposes that the facilities are scattered such that they make the most appropriate offer locally, and blend in with the surrounding land uses. For instance, this could suggest that community facilities are anchored to the old chapel and that sports venues and shops are clustered along busy roads (Pimlico and Ebury Bridge).
In this theme we will consider broad strategies for `massing` and the arrangement of buildings on site. The diagrams below are sections cut across the site from St Barnabas Street on the left to Chelsea Bridge Road on the right:
Extent of public / open space
Existing houses - St Barnabas St
Option A suggests stepping buildings up gradually from St Barnabas Street to Chelsea Bridge Road, broadly respecting the surrounding setting. This option allows for a new public space of a good size
Option B locates taller buildings at the centre of the site, stepping down toward the site`s boundaries. This option could help to deliver a greater amount of public space than options A and C.
Option C arranges the buildings on a tighter layout. This would restrict the amount of new public space but could have the benefit of offering buildings with a lower profile.
In this theme we would like you to consider affordable housing, where this could be located and when it would be delivered. Please first tell us whether you favour affordable housing located on site or whether a proportion should be located off site:
On site provision could help to retain a mixed and balanced neighbourhood. This is already an established characteristic of the area. However, there may be some concerns that this approach could lead to stigmatisation within a prestigious development.
Off site provision could enable earlier delivery of the affordable housing, rather than have it tied to the delivery timeline for the Chelsea Barracks project. However, there may be some concerns around the development of an exclusive neighbourhood.
Please tell us which option you prefer for the on site delivery of affordable housing:
Option A proposes that the affordable housing would be located in one cluster. This would require all of the affordable housing to be delivered in one phase, possibly toward the end of the construction period.
Option B suggests that the affordable housing is gathered along Ebury Bridge Road and delivered in phases. This would help to get some affordable housing on site at a reasonably early stage.
Option 3 considers the option of providing the affordable housing ‘pepper potted’ across the site, in phases tied to the private or market housing. This is the most difficult option to deliver, and may not be economically viable.
Please tell us whether you feel that some or all of the affordable housing should be delivered off site:
This option could help to retain key workers and form a balanced neighbourhood in the Chelsea Barracks area while providing some off site affordable housing more quickly. However, there may still be density issues to tackle.
This option might result in lower on site density but could lead to the formation of an exclusive neighbourhood.
Please tell us whether you believe that the affordable housing should be provided locally or just within the borough:
Local provision would allow key workers to be housed in the neighbourhood and could help to form a socially integrated area. However, building densities around the site are already fairly high, and it is likely that local provision would push these densities up as the Ward already has a high proportion of Affordable Housing.
If the appraoch were flexible enough to allow the provision to be anywhere within the borough, the chances of early delivery would be potentially enhanced, subject to the appropriate sites coming forward. However, this could lead to the development of an exclusive neighbourhood.
The main vehicular routes will establish the degree of connectivity with the wider neighbourhood. In this theme we will consider where these routes should run and how many there should be. We may consider some to be restricted access, available, say, only to emergency services, or providing a link for pedestrians and cyclists:
pedestrian & restricted access
vehicular access
Option A proposes a clear East- West linking route connecting to a secondary North-South route that joins up with Chelsea Bridge Road. This option presents the most minimal option in terms of new road junctions but the least integrated in terms of extending local roads.
Option B proposes a North South linkage route that anticipates controlled entrance at the northern (Ranelagh Grove) end and full connection to Chelsea Bridge Road to the south. Two connecting roads are proposed to link up with Ebury Bridge Road, one being restricted access.
Option C represents a fairly large number of new junctions and the greatest permeability. Full North- South and East-West connecting routes are proposed, the former on the Ranelagh Grove alignment and the latter running parallel to Chelsea Bridge Road. A further East-West linkage off Ebury Bridge Road is also proposed.
Option D suggests a similar level of connectivity as option C but with an East-West emphasis. The northern most East-West route picks up on an emerging desire line that links to a route connecting through the Grosvenor Waterside development to the Thames embankment.
