AALBORG UNIVERSITY
URBAN PLANNING & MANAGEMENT
8TH SEMESTER | 2013/2014
ESZTER JUHÁSZ-NAGY
EGLĖ RASIMAVIČIŪTĖ
BARTOSZ MATUSZEWSKI
EXHIBITION ROAD
- A SHARED SPACE ?
0
Title Exhibition Road – a shared space?
Topic Power in Planning
Aalborg University
Urban Planning and Management
Development and Planning
Skibbrogade 5
9000 Aalborg
Project period
February 3rd 2014 – June 3rd 2014
Project group
Eszter Juhász-Nagy
Eglė Rasimavičiūtė
Bartek Matuszewski
Supervisor
Enza Lissandrello
Abstract
Roads and the way roads are used have a great impact on
city life. Nowadays, the overall importance of vehicle traffic
is questioned in many places. This leads to the emergence of
new concepts about road use, where pedestrians and the
accessibility of the road for all participants of the traffic is
prioritized. One of these new concepts is the idea of shared
space, which is based on the assumption that reducing the
rules and safety measures on the streets will lead to a more
democratic way of using them, where participants of the
traffic are forced to pay attention to each other and
negotiate. However, implementing such schemes has some
serious difficulties, as they constitute a radical shift in
mentality.
This report investigates the problematic of implementing
road schemes that are radically different from the generally
accepted road use and road design concepts, specifically
shared space schemes. In order to understand this problem,
the multi-level perspective theory of transitions is applied to
different ways of road use. By understanding road use in
light of the multi-level perspective, it is possible to
investigate the implementation of shared space schemes as
an attempt to move towards a new socio-technological
regime.
The case analysed in the report is the planning process of
the innovative design of Exhibition Road in South
Kensington, London, UK, which was influenced by the idea
of shared space. In this case study, the competition between
different discourses about road use are analysed in order to
get an insight into their impact on the design of shared
space.
The conclusions in the report are drawn by applying the
multi-level perspective theory about transitions to the
conclusions of the discourse analysis of the case of
Exhibition Road. The findings can bring light to the nature
of the difficulties that the implementation of schemes
influenced by the idea of shared space faces. The research
also points out some possible answers to these difficulties,
and allows some projections to be made about the future of
road use in relation to introducing radical concepts.
Copies: 2
Pages: 75
Appendixes: 3
Keywords: shared space, transition, multi-level perspective,
Exhibition Road, discourse analysis
The content of this report is freely available, but publication (with references) may only happen with authorisation from the
authors.
1
2
Preface
This report was written by during the 2nd semester of the Master Programme of Urban Planning and
Management at the Department of Development and Planning of Aalborg University in the academic
year 2013/2014. The semester’s theme was “Power in Planning” that served as a frame for the
underlying topic of the report. Therefore, the starting point for our investigation was the planning
process and the way power is exercised.
The report “Exhibition Road – a shared space?” presents the analyses of the process that led to the
construction of one of the most spectacular streetscapes in London. The paper deals with the question
of how the initial idea of shared space was shaped during the planning process and explains what this
example can tell us about problems that can occur with the implementation of shared space in general,
as it is a new concept in urban design.
Special thanks are given to Bill Mount and David Bonnett who devoted their time to participate in the
interview and providing important information about the project of Exhibition Road. Grateful
acknowledgement is also made to The Planning Department of The Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea who helped the researches to gather data for this paper.
The supervisor of the report was Enza Lissandrello, who provided support during the semester and
helped with the development of the research.
3
4
Table of Contents
Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Images and Figures ................................................................................................................... 6
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1
Shared Space ........................................................................................................................... 7
1.2
Problem Formulation ............................................................................................................... 9
1.3
Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 10
1.4
Report Structure .................................................................................................................... 11
2. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................ 13
2.1
Transitions ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.1.1
Multi-level Perspective .................................................................................................. 14
2.2
Shared Space as a New Socio-Technical Regime ................................................................ 19
3. Analytical Framework ................................................................................................................... 23
3.1
Research Design .................................................................................................................... 23
3.2
Theory of Science .................................................................................................................. 25
3.3
Discourse Analysis ................................................................................................................ 26
3.4
Data Collection Protocol ....................................................................................................... 30
4. Empirical Study – The case of Exhibition Road ........................................................................... 33
4.1
Case Description.................................................................................................................... 33
4.2
Analysis of the Case .............................................................................................................. 39
4.2.1
Discourses in the planning process................................................................................ 39
5.
4.2.2
Story-lines in the planning process................................................................................ 42
4.2.3
Summary of the analysis – story-lines and discourses .................................................. 63
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 69
5.1
Conclusions of the Case ........................................................................................................ 69
5.2
Final Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 70
6. Reflections on Our Work............................................................................................................... 75
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................... 83
Appendix C ......................................................................................................................................... 101
5
Table of Images and Figures
Image 1.1 Shared space concept (Hamilton-Baillie, 2008, p. 135)……………………………………..8
Image 2.1 Illustration by Frank Young 1922 (Norton, 2008)………………………………………….20
Image 2.2 Overregulated junction (Hamilton-Baillie, 2008, p. 131)…………………………………..22
Image 4.1 Map of Exhibition Road and South Kensington (Google Inc., 2014)…………………...…33
Image 4.2 - Exhibition Road before and after implementation of the new design
(http://eyeonportland.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/exhibition-road.jpg)..............................................36
Image 4.3 - (YouTube 2A, 3:32) …………………………………...…………………………………44
Image 4.4: Temporary signs in Exhibition Road (http://i1.wp.com/thisbigcity.net/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/IMG_1268.jpg) ……………………………………………………………..57
Figure 1.1 – The Structure of the Report ……………………………………………………………...11
Figure 2.1. A dynamic multi-level perspective on transitions. (Geels, 2005, p. 452) ………………...15
Figure 3.1 Research Design …………………………………………………………………………...23
Figure 4.1 Exhibition Road final design (own work based on RBKC, 2009) ………………………...38
Figure 4.2 – Discourses and discourse coalitions in the planning process of Exhibition Road ………39
Figure 4.3 – Story-lines in the planning process of Exhibition Road …………………………………42
Figure 4.4 – The connection between the discourse coalitions and story-lines in the planning process
of Exhibition Road …………………………………………………………………………………….63
Figure 4.5 – The appearance and importance of discourses and story-lines in relation to the timeline of
events ………………………………………………………………………………………………….66
Figure 5.2 The transition process towards a new socio-technical regime about road use (own work
based on Geels, 2005) …………………………………………………………………………………72
6
1.
Introduction
The goal of this chapter is to introduce the focus of our research. In order to do this, first the concept
of shared space is explained, and then the problem that the research is going to tackle is formulated.
This leads to the introduction of the research questions and sub-questions that are going to guide the
research, followed by the structure of the report in order to give provide the reader with an overview of
the different chapters and their contents.
1.1 Shared Space
Streets’ design and streets’ function are influential factors for urban life. They constitute and define
people’s behaviour: the way people act, perceive and navigate in the urban space. Socioeconomic
development constantly creates new challenges for people who try to plan, design and organize those
spaces. Especially the vast increase of car and pedestrian traffic in the biggest cities and the rise in
service offer generate an urge for new designs and ideas that could improve the traffic flow and assure
accessibility for all.
One of such ideas is the concept of “shared space” as a way to organize the movement and handle the
issues of fluidity and security of traffic flow for all participants and actors on the road. The shared
space concept is a relatively new idea that has its origins in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands,
where the first projects based on this concept were introduced (Moody & Melia, 2012). The person
responsible for developing and spreading the idea was the Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman.
He experimented with removing or downgrading usual street elements such as signs, road markings,
chicanes and road humps, especially in villages and small towns (Vanderbilt, 2008). One of the most
important projects that followed this rationality and granted the shared space concept international
attention was implemented in the city of Drachten in the Netherlands, where the principle of shared
space was used during reconstruction of the main crossroad and city centre (Gerlach, et al., n.d.).
Later, the idea spread around the world and became a significant force in the debate about public space
design and traffic control in other European countries as well as in the United States and Australia
(Schlabbach, 2011). In Europe, the research was taken on by the Shared Space organization, which
involved researchers in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark and the United Kingdom. They
were researching the concept and creating pilot projects for data collection. The first transnational
Shared Space workshop was held in September 2004 (Shared Space, 2008).
At the core of the shared space concept is a critique towards the efficiency of traditional transport
engineering and its capability of handling the difficulties of creating modern, pedestrian-friendly,
accessible and effective public spaces (Methorst, 2007). The shared space concept claims that in order
to improve the quality of road traffic, main regulatory systems such as traffic lights, signs, marked
crossings and kerbs should be removed and the movement control should be left over to the road users
themselves, their politeness, common sense and social interactions (Methorst, 2007). The aim of these
actions is to enforce participants of the traffic, especially car drivers, to be aware and to adapt to social
circumstances on the road.
The main features that create these conditions in shared space are a flat, multi-used surface that is not
divided by any significant demarcation lines, and the lack of traffic signs and other elements
regulating the traffic in the area. The context is usually also changed by the presence of urban furniture
and a surface material different from asphalt. A change in context according to Monderman can
7
effectively change the behaviour of drivers and pedestrians (Vanderbilt, 2008). Removing the
abovementioned traditional safety measures from the road and introducing an element of risk
paradoxically has the goal of improving traffic safety through bringing the focus on other traffic
participants and their behaviour. Here it presents a solution for the point of critique towards the
traditional road concept in which actors are locked within well regulated zones and are taken out of the
context so that it causes them not to observe the surroundings (Kaparias, et al., 2012). In shared space
there is no physical dividing and regulatory sings, so all participants of the traffic must therefore pay a
greater attention to whatever is happening on the road and its closest surrounding (Hamilton-Baillie,
2008).
Image 1.1 Shared space concept (Hamilton-Baillie, 2008, p. 135)
The idea itself does not offer and specific suggestions in terms of design but focuses on the importance
of human interaction in organizing traffic. It also emphasises the importance of removing regulatory
elements in order to ensure more conscious behaviour among road users, increase the power of
pedestrians to spontaneous self-regulation of priority and introduce more democracy into traffic
relations (Methorst, 2007). Because of the lack of specified design suggestions, the shared space
concept has to be treated as more of a form of ideological approach to street planning and it has been
shown to be understood differently by planners and designers in different environments and countries
(Methorst, 2007). It relates to the general concept that is the very understanding of the road as a space
and to a perception of the system of rules regulating the traffic that people are used to.
8
1.2 Problem Formulation
It is this required difference in the mind-set of road users between the traditional model of the street
and shared space that shows how significant shift it is. The shift consists of removing physical barriers
and introducing interaction as the main rule for managing the traffic. Implementing a shared space is a
radical change, in the sense that people have to adapt to it. The aim of this report is to understand the
problematic of implementing such radical schemes while the traditional concept of roads is still
unquestionably dominant. This is done by looking at the rising popularity of shared spaces as a
transition between two greatly different road systems. Transition here is understood as a radical
change of the socio-technological regime that defines the way people perceive and act on the road. To
achieve the aim of the report we are going to investigate the case of Exhibition Road in South
Kensington, London.
In the last 10 years, the concept of shared space became quite popular, particularly in the United
Kingdom, where it became a hot topic on the occasion of some major projects in big cities. One of
such projects is Exhibition Road that has been re-designed with elements of shared space and
completed in February 2012 (RBKC, 2012). The street, which is the location of several important
museums such as the National History Museum, Science Museum or Victoria and Albert Museum, has
undergone a significant change in design in order to better serve the enormous pedestrian and car
traffic in the area.
The shared space idea was present during the planning process of Exhibition Road from the very
beginning. However, as this report will show, the idea was modified and influenced during the process
of planning and the negotiations between different stakeholders and interest groups. In result, the final
design contains only some of the basic elements of shared space, such as limited barriers and lack of
regulatory signs typical for a normal road. On the other hand it also includes strongly defined zones
that regulate the traffic and vehicle and pedestrian movement. Designers often refer to the new layout
as a single surface rather than shared space. The starting assumption for the case study in this report
was that the idea of shared space in this specific project the Exhibition Road was so radically different
from the existing status quo about road perception in terms of traffic control elements, accessibility
and movement hierarchy, that the implementation was very difficult. What made this even more
difficult could be the fact that the existing way of thinking about the streets is very strongly settled in
the social consciousness. Because of this, the evolution towards shared space solutions needs smaller,
gentler steps that can be accepted by the different users. The single surface solution can be understood
as such a step.
In order to find out whether our assumptions about the case are correct, we investigate the way the
different concepts of roads influenced the planning process of Exhibition Road. We do this by looking
at the discourses in the planning process. By this we get an understanding of how competing
discourses can affect the implementation of shared space schemes in today’s society. The conclusions
drawn from the case study will then be placed in the broader picture of the transition toward a new
concept of road-use and road design, and by this return to the aim of the project: to comprehend the
difficulties of implementing a radically new idea in a well-established system.
9
1.3 Research Questions
For the purposes stated above, this paper investigates the planning process of developing the design
for Exhibition Road and tries to answer the following research questions:
How and why did the competition between different discourses in the planning process of
Exhibition Road influence the design of shared space?
How can this be explained in light of the multi-level perspective theory about transitions?
In order to answer these questions, the report is divided into sections that tackle following subquestions:
1. What are transitions? How and why can the move toward shared space be interpreted as a
transition process in the multi-level perspective?
2. What were the most influential discourses present in the planning process of Exhibition Road
and who were the actors representing them?
3. How did these discourses influence the design of shared space through specific story-lines?
10
1.4
Report Structure
1. Introduction
1.1 Shared space
Presentation of the idea of shared space and its main theoretical and
practical foundations
1.2 Problem formulation
Brief introduction of the case and presentation of the focus of the research
1.3 Research questions
Presentation of the research question and sub-questions
1.3 Report structure
Figure outlining the chapters and their content
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Transitions
Explanation of what a transition is, briefly presenting different transition
theory approaches
2.1.1 MLP
Discussion of multi-level perspective as our theoretical framework and
three different levels of it: landscape, regime and niche
2.2 Shared space as a
new socio-technical
regime
Explanation of how the move towards shared space is interpreted by us as
a transitional process. Presentation of shared space implementation and
its social and physical features on the multi-level perspective. Hypothesis
about what this means for an attempt to implement shared space in
practice.
3. Analytical framework
3.1 Research design
Presentation of the way the research is sturctured, based on the research
questions and sub-questions.
3.2 Theory of science
Presentation of social constructionism, and how it relates to discourse
analysis
3.2 Discourse analysis
Introduction to discourses and discourse analysis, and how it relates to
transitions. Presentation of concepts used in the analysis. Our practical
method for the analysis
3.2 Data collection
Presenting the types of data used in the research and the what they are
used for
4. Empirical study
4.1 Case description
Presentation of the timeline of events and the implemented design
4.2 Analysis of the case
4.2.1 Discourses and
discourse coalitions
Identifying discourses and mapping actors, identifying discourse coalitions,
describing the main characteristics of the different discourses
4.2.2 Story-lines
Introduction and analysis of the story-lines and the way actors interact
through them, and describing the impact of story-lines on the planning
process
4.2.3 Summary of the
analysis
Mapping the story-lines in relation to the discourses and summarizing the
analysis
5. Conclusions
5.1 Conclusions of the
case
5.2 Final conclusions
Answering the first research question by referring to the analysis of the
case
Answering the second research question by applying the theoretical
framework to the conclusions drawn from the case study
6. Reflections on our work
Limitations of the research, data collection, etc. and their consequences for the report
Figure 1.1 – The Structure of the Report
11
12
2.
Theoretical Framework
The theory chapter creates the foundation necessary for drawing the conclusions of the report. For that
reason, the focus is put on the transition process from a theoretical point of view. Firstly, the chapter
presents an overview of theories about transitions including the definition and the main characteristics
(see Chapter 2.1). Later, the details of multi-level perspective of the transition theory are introduced,
as it is chosen as the area of focus in this report (see Chapter 2.1.1). The last section attempts to show
how the rising popularity of shared space can be understood as part of a transition process and depicts
elements of that process within the frame of multi-level perspective (see Chapter 2.2).
2.1 Transitions
Transition can be understood as a long-term transformative and radical change. It is a process of
fundamental change and a period of transformation from one state or condition to another (Shove &
Walker, 2007). Transitions are essential shifts in mentality, structures and practices, which include
actors from various fields and scale-levels (Roorda, et al., 2012).
Here, actors are defined as including governments (national and local policy-makers), market-based
actors and the civil society. These actors have a diapason of social and individual objectives (Foxon, et
al., 2009). They interact, create alliances, exercise power, collaborate or struggle with each other
within the restrictions and favourable circumstances of existing structures. In the meantime, these
actors act upon and reconstruct systems (Jorgensen, 2012). With expedient actions actors can give
increase to transformations in institutions and infrastructures within systems (Foxon, et al., 2009).
Transition theory covers various, although similar theoretical approaches, which investigate sociotechnical transitions’ development. The socio-technical concept addresses reciprocal evolution of
social and technical connection whereas transition addresses the dynamics that cause the appearance of
radical change in these relationships (Geels, 2005). Transitions are processes of change, where society
transforms in a fundamental way during a generation or even more. Even though the aims of a
transition are eventually selected by society, governments might “play a role in bringing about
structural change in a stepwise manner“ (Rotmans, et al., 2001, p. 15).
Societal functions according to Geels are executed by socio-technical systems. These systems are
formed of an array of elements which involve regulations, markets, technologies, consumer practices,
supply and maintenance networks, infrastructure and cultural meanings. Thereby, transitions which
occur at the level of societal functions, comprise of transformation from one to another socio-technical
system. (Geels, 2005)
There are different theories for understanding transitions such as transition management, arenas of
development or multi-level perspective.
Transition management is a process of governance which aims to influence the way and tempo of
dynamics of societal change towards sustainability (Roorda, et al., 2012) and is viewed “as a form of
participatory policy-making” that is built around “complex systems thinking” (Foxon, et al., 2009, p.
3). It forms processes of co-evolution by creating visions and goals, using “cycles of learning and
adaptation” (Kemp, et al., 2007, p. 78) and mobilizing transformation over transition experiments
(Foxon, et al., 2009). In transition management, societal change is viewed as an outcome of interplay
13
between all actors that are relevant on diverse societal levels in the context of transforming the
“societal landscape” (Kemp, et al., 2007).
Transition management can help societies to change themselves gradually and in a reflexive way via
directed “processes of variation and selection, the outcomes of which are stepping stones for further
change” (Kemp, et al., 2007, p. 78). It also indicates that it is possible for societies to break free from
current practices and existing technologies “by engaging in co-evolutionary steering” (Kemp, et al.,
2007, p. 78).
Another theoretical approach to transition theory is arenas of development, where an alternative
framework is provided by the arenas to analyse the conditions of transitions’ processes (Jorgensen,
2012, p. 1000). Arena of development can be understood as “a spatial imagery” which joins
heterogeneous elements that appear to be distant “in geographical and conventional cultural space”
(Jorgensen, 2012, p. 1001). The intention of arenas of development is seen to be functioning as “a
cognitive space for research” (Sorensen & Jorgensen, 1999, p. 409) and determine “the space in
which socio-material activities are located, and offer stages on which actions and dynamics can be
performed” (Jorgensen, 2012, p. 1001).
However, for the research presented in this report we choose and focus on the multi-level perspective
(MLP) approach for creating the theoretical framework.
2.1.1 Multi-level Perspective
The concept of transitions comes from system thinking that underlines the coevolution of both:
technical and social. It also strives to analyse and comprehend the appearance, transformation and
decay of socio-technical systems (Shove & Walker, 2007). For understanding how changes “from one
socio-technical system to another” happen, the multi-level perspective (MLP) (Geels, 2005, p. 445)
was presented in transition theories in recent decades. This perspective shows approaches to
understanding transitions through comprehension of the interplay between three different levels:
landscape, regime and niche (Jorgensen, 2012).
The theoretical foundation of the multi-level perspective is formed by these three interacting levels
(socio-technical landscape, socio-technical regime, and niche). The main ideology behind this
perspective comes from “the sociology of technology” (Geels, 2005, p. 449) in which some
interconnected aspects are important. These dimensions can be seen as socio-technical systems (for
example, material items for fulfilling societal functions), social groups which monitor and reproduce
those tangible elements and connections of systems, and rules which direct and orient social groups’
and actors’ actions. (Geels, 2005)
The three levels (Figure 1) show the distinction and links between micro-level, meso-level and macrolevel theories, which are well known in economic and sociology fields and constantly determine a
hierarchy (Jorgensen, 2012). The top level (macro-level) reflects “the broader political, social and
cultural values and institutions that form the deep structural relationships of a society and only
change slowly” (Foxon, et al., 2009, pp. 2-3). The middle level or meso-level represents the
predominant package of practices which are utilized by actors who build, develop and strengthen a
specific technological system, involving “engineering practices, production process technologies,
product characteristics, skills and procedures all of them embedded in institutions and
infrastructures” (Foxon, et al., 2009, p. 3). The last level is the micro-level, where radical innovations
14
are established in niches, which are places partly isolated from regular market selection at the regime
level, i.e., market places, specialised sectors, etc. (Foxon, et al., 2009)
Figure 2.1. A dynamic multi-level perspective on transitions. (Geels, 2005, p. 452)
The multi-level perspective bears a resemblance to the interest of the innovation system approach in
understanding the innovation’s dynamics (Jorgensen, 2012).
The idea behind transitions is that they happen “through processes of co-evolution and mutual
adaptation” inside and among the abovementioned three layers (Shove & Walker, 2007, p. 2). MLP
might be used for describing how fresh technologies appear inside niches and how they get working
configurations, which form and reform the regimes and landscapes they support and that are in turn
supported by them. The main task is to conceive how presently dominant socio-technical regimes
could be broken up and replaced and how novel configurations might become dominant. (Shove &
Walker, 2007)
The phases of transitions in the multi-level perspective
Some phases might be distinguished in transitions. Firstly, radical innovations appear in niches which
are frequently outside, or on the edge of the current regime. Early innovations are weak and unstable,
and there are the rules which are unstable too, e.g. the dominant design. At this phase there might be
different designs which compete with each other. For preparing the best design and finding out user’s
wishes, actors improvise and experiment. However, at this point the networks carrying and
15
encouraging the innovation are not big and are uncertain, which is why the innovations are not
dangerous yet for the existing regime. (Geels, 2005)
After the first phase, small market niches which give resources for technical progress and
specialization are being used by new innovations. The new technology develops a technical trajectory
of its own and this leads to the beginning of the stabilization of rules. The new technology allows
users to gain experience with it, to point out their preferences. Users might also create user clubs for
lobbying for a novel technology, although the new innovation at the specialized market niches still
does not create a large-scale threat to the dominant regime, which is established in many ways, for
example economically, institutionally and so on. These new technologies might stay stuck in
specialized market niches for decades as the result of confrontation with a mismatch with the current
regime. Until the regime stays stable, niche novelties have quite a small possibility to spread more
widely. (Geels, 2005)
During the third phase, the wider breakthrough of the novel technology and rivalry with the
entrenched regime occurs. This phenomenon depends on domestic drivers in the niche. One of these
drivers is an upgrade in the “price/performance ratio” (Geels, 2005, p. 451). Another significant
driver is that actors with power encourage the novelty. To stimulate its development they use their
various capital (financial, political or organizational) and help to overcome opposition from different
social groups. (Geels, 2005)
On the other hand, external circumstances that are in another level of the multi-level perspective are
essential in the third phase, because they can create a chance for windows of opportunity for
innovations in niches to appear. The appearance of the openings is based on tensions which emerge
between elements of socio-technical regime level. For instance, this happens when social groups’
actions starts to be misaligned. Transformations in social, cultural or economic fields at the landscape
level of multi-level perspective create a pressure on the regime, which is a meaningful reason for these
tensions. Another reason is that the current regime is plagued by growing domestic issues, which
could not be dealt with by means of incremental improvements. The regime issues might be worsened
by more difficult regulatory measures and transforming user preferences. MLP underlines that
domestic niche dynamics are as important as external developments for a wider breakthrough and
spreading at the landscape and regime levels. (Geels, 2005) This can be seen in Figure 1.
Moreover, a really important aspect of MLP “is to do away with simple causality in transitions”
(Geels, 2005, p. 453). There is no ordinary reason or driver. Alternatively, at multiple dimensions and
various levels processes simultaneously happen. Transitions occur at the time of these processes
connecting and strengthening each other – which Geels (2005, p. 453) refers to as “circular causality”.
(Geels, 2005)
From Figure 1, it can be seen that the multi-level perspective operates from the outside in, depicting
and mapping the whole long-lasting process. Due to MLP’s underlining of the alignment of processes
which occur at various levels it might look like mechanical and linear, however, this feeling
disappears with the addition of social groups and actors. As it is illustrated in Figure 1:
“[…] processes in socio-technical regimes and systems are the outcome of perceptions and
(inter)actions of actors and social groups. These social groups try to navigate a transition, find their
way through searching and learning, interact in power struggles, controversies and debates” (Geels,
2005, p. 453).
16
The multi-level perspective has been used as an efficient structure for describing and analysing
numerous historic transitions and also to outline possible transitions which emerge in niches
demonstrating potential for new developments. Analysis of these historic transitions shows that
besides the transformation of regimes and socio-technical solutions, “visions, values, configurations of
economic and political governance, and the criteria used to assess the outcome of transition” changes
as well (Jorgensen, 2012, p. 997).
Landscape
The top or macro-level in the multi-level perspective is the socio-technical landscape (Geels, 2005)
which can be defined in a variety of ways. In all of these ways, it is understood as ‘exogenous
developments” (Jorgensen, 2012, p. 998) related to the basic notions represented by the two lower
levels of the MLP. Accordingly, the socio-technical landscape which forms the macro-level is
referring to features of the boarder ‘exogenous environment’. As examples environmental issues,
globalization and cultural transformations can be taken. (Jorgensen, 2012)
The landscape indicates a general socio-technical determination, which covers immaterial facets such
as political ideas, social values and beliefs about life as well as tangible aspects of the built
environment with institutions and market-functions like costs, merchant models, incomes and prices.
(Geels, 2005)
The landscape acts as an external backdrop for the interaction of different actors at the two lower
levels (Geels, 2002). The macro-level also creates “gradients”, which are formed for action from
which it is difficult to deviate. These gradients are not directly influenced by actors and cannot be
transformed at will (Geels, 2005). However, changes might appear at the macro-level but not at the
same pace as at regime level: “At some point in time, landscape changes may occur, for example,
emergence of new values, changes in macro-political coalitions, wars, and so on.” (Jorgensen, 2012,
p. 998). As one of these transformations, the rise of environmental awareness can be taken. This
aspect creates a pressure for many regimes such as agriculture or aviation, etc. This leads to an
opportunity for ‘openings’ to be created where new technologies can develop themselves (Geels,
2002).
Regime
The regime indicates technologies, rules and prevailing practices that give stability and consolidation
to dominant socio-technical systems. Technological regimes are defined as a package of rules placed
in institutions of the engineering community and the infrastructure that form technological innovations
(Rip & Kemp, 1998). The concept of technological regimes was used for describing processes of
change, ‘regime shifts’, by developing a comprehension of processes of niche-formation. These
processes can be determined as a mix of “coupling of expectations, articulation of problems, needs,
and possibilities, and network formation” (Jorgensen & Sorensen, 1999, p. 416).
The spotlight from engineers was expanded by Geels to include a wider range of social groups, i.e.
accountants, policy makers and suppliers. The web which is created by these interlinking actors who
follow a package of rules was entitled ‘socio-technical regime’. (Geels, 2002, p. 1260)
The meso-level in the multi-level perspective is formed by the socio-technical regime. It accounts for
the present socio-technical systems’ stability through giving coordination and orientation for relevant
social groups’ activities (Geels, 2005). In transition theory the idea of socio-technical regimes,
developed from the settling of technologies and institutions inside different parts of society that leads
17
to “path dependencies” (Jorgensen, 2012, p. 997), was built. These settlings determine particular
“paths of development” and give strength and momentum to withstand change. The main move in the
transition’s analysis is the identification of regimes. This basic move is followed by the exploration of
niches that have a possibility to be a threat to dominant regimes, or by collation with fresh, novel and
changed regimes which show the transition process: how one regime was replaced by another.
(Jorgensen, 2012)
Furthermore, socio-technical regimes function like selection and reservation mechanisms. They filter
out unsuccessful innovations whilst including more worthy novelties into the present regime (Geels,
2002). At the regime level change takes place incrementally and it is also oriented to attain
optimization. Vested interests of the permanent regime are possibly threatened by radical change (Rip
& Kemp, 1998).
Stability characterises existing socio-technical systems. The stability is dynamic not fixed which
means that novelty still appears “but it is of an incremental nature” (Geels, 2005, p. 450). Social
relationships also make present socio-technical systems stable: “Actors and organizations are
embedded in interdependent networks, which represent a kind of ‘organizational capital’ and create
stability through mutual role expectations” (Geels, 2005, p. 450). Contributions to the stability of
existing systems by organizational obligations and vested interests of present organizations are made
as well. (Geels, 2005)
Moreover, actors who have power and are incumbent might attempt to supress innovations by
controlling the market or using political lobbying. Specific organizations for lobbying might also be
created by industries. Support for stability also comes from the socio-technical systems’ tangible
aspects regarding sunk investments. When artefacts and tangible networks are placed, then they are
not simply abandoned and can also obtain a characteristic rationale. (Geels, 2005)
Regime as a concept can be understood as a valuable contribution to the comprehension of institutions
and mechanisms which sustain intricate existing systems (i.e. “the road and car system of transport”
(Jorgensen & Sorensen, 1999, p. 416)). The regime does not involve processes which might constantly
collapse and shatter socio-technical systems. The mechanisms which update the system’s structuring
are downplayed by the regime. What is more, the focus of a regime is put on already developed
technology rather on those technologies which are developing, which might be seen as a more
significant issue. The central representation of technology is viewed as the core of change and
stability. (Jorgensen & Sorensen, 1999)
Niche
The micro-level is represented by the niche, which is a ‘place’ for creation of fundamental novelties
and experimentations for taking down current regimes (Jorgensen, 2012). It provides a platform for
processes in certain dimensions such as infrastructure, technology, user preferences, symbolic
meaning and rules to be learnt. Niche gives a location or area for building social networks which
promote novelties (i.e. lobby groups, user associations and new industry networks) (Geels, 2005). It is
also less dependent on the impact of the market and regulations, and alleviates communications
between various actors supporting product or technology innovation (Geels, 2002).
The niche creates a possibility for divergence from the regulations in present regimes. It is less stable
and not as well determined as the regime, and does “not restrict actors to following rules in the same
coherent and reproductive way” (Jorgensen, 2012, p. 998). Niche also provides a space for the
18
appearance of learning processes and place to create the social networks which support novelties,
“such as supply chains and user-producer relationships” (Foxon, et al., 2009, p. 3). Moreover, niches
can have different forms. One of them is “small market niches” (Geels, 2005, p. 450) which have
different particular option criteria than the current regime. Another form of niches can be defined as
“technological niches” where public subventions or private strategic investments provide resources
(Geels, 2005).
Niche acts like a secure environment where radical innovations happen and new developments can
emerge and rise, protected from the selection process which exists at the level of regime (Geels, 2002).
In the niche regulations, organizations and intentions differ from those at the regime level. It is a
secured and safe space “where nurturing and experimentation with the co-evolution of technology,
user practices, and regulatory structures” occurs (Geels & Schot, 2008, p. 538).
Successful niches put pressure on different aspects of regimes and form their path apposite to the
background of bigger landscape developments. Accordingly, revealing how socio-technical
configurations which might be functional become configurations which do function between a variety
of bigger landscape developments is one of the interest of transition research. Generally, a transition
happening in a socio-technical system includes dynamics within multiple actors on multiple levels,
and research in transition seek to comprehend and capture these dynamics. (Geels, 2005)
However, the creation of radical innovations in socio-technical systems is a hard task and the
stabilizing mechanism makes it difficult to be completed. Radical innovations’ performance is low in
the beginning, therefore they do not have a chance to compete right away in the dominant markets at
the regime level. As Geels puts it, niches give “a trickle of resources that enable a new technology to
survive and develop in relative isolation” (Geels, 2005, p. 450). They function like incubators for
radical novelties which help to cultivate their early evolution (Geels, 2005).
Now that the multi-level perspective on transitions have been introduced and is understood, it is
possible to discuss changes in road design in light of this theory.
2.2
Shared Space as a New Socio-Technical Regime
In this section transition theory is going to be used as a way of understanding the introduction of
radical change in road design, such as the implementation of shared spaces. This will be done by
interpreting roads in relation to the multi-level perspective.
The concept of transition is usually used in scientific debate about sustainable development. It appears
in discussions about changes in technologies and social issues. However, the concept of transition is
rarely applied when speaking about physical, spatial structures. Shared space as a design solution that
creates more pedestrian friendly environment and aims traffic calming can be easily connected to the
discussion about sustainability, however, it is still fundamentally a spatial concept. This is why it is
interesting to attempt to look at shared space as an element of transition in the field of urban planning
and see how it is possible to explain the phenomenon through transition theory.
As described in Section 2.1, transition is a long, transformative process that brings a radical change in
mind-set, physical structures and practices (Shove & Walker, 2007). In this section, we show how we
interpret elements of shared space implementation as a transition to a new way of designing and
thinking about urban space. As we mentioned before, the focus is on the multi-level perspective of
19
transition theory, so therefore in this chapter we try to depict how the transition towards shared space
can be seen within this dimension. Moreover, we also explain what implications this assumption
brings for our further analysis.
Societal functions are fulfilled by socio-technical systems (Geels, 2005). Through analogy, human
behaviour on the road is deeply grounded in our beliefs and the image of how the urban space should
work. That mind-set is also supported by rules, laws, physical structures and human habits. All these
things together make people act in a certain way on the road and also shape the course of discussion
about urban space. The socio-technical system is very complex and there are many different factors
that compose it. Shared space brings a radical change in many of these aspects.
The landscape that forms the macro-level (Geels, 2005) is formed partly by the general perception of
what the road is, as well as the elements of the built environment that are a direct result of the mindset. This perception has derived from a long history of how cities are organized, especially since the
arrival of automobiles. The long-existing physical structures of the majority of the streets help to
strengthen the perception of the road in the human mind. The landscape is also filled with topics and
categories in which problems and solutions are described and discussed.
The meso-level is the regime level (Geels, 2005). We interpret the laws that regulate the street design,
requirements of safety and the Highway Code, as a part of it. On the physical level, the regime takes a
form of traffic signs, lights and demarcated lanes that regulate human behaviour. Moreover, this level,
in our interpretation, also includes design practices and habits of professionals and organizations that
are used to a certain way of thinking and working as well as the actual rules regulating design
practices and behaviour on the street.
The niche-level is the area where novelties develop and take shape before they can challenge the
regime (Geels, 2005). In our research, we consider experimental urban projects that are being
implemented around the world as the niche. They provide the platform for discussion about new ideas
that appear on the landscape. This is how an innovative solution like shared space can develop.
It can be stated that the common opinion in today’s society is that traffic should be heavily regulated.
This view is represented by various traffic signs, lights, separate zones for each type of actor (cars,
pedestrians, cyclists) and numerous regulations that define the way the road should be designed and
used. This was all invented to ensure that roads meet the criteria of safety and passability as well as the
expectations of all – or most – of its users. The socio-technical regime that regulates reality is deeply
grounded in societal thinking, and supports the marco-level of beliefs and values (Foxon, et al., 2009).
Image 2.1 Illustration by Frank Young 1922 (Norton, 2008)
20
Shared space brings a radical change in relation to this regime. The idea requires revolutionary change
in design practice, physical structures and a major shift in how people understand the way the road
should work. The change towards fewer regulations, abolition of traffic lanes, pavement zones and
kerbs in between these zones, following the logic presented above, constitutes a change of the sociotechnical regime. It changes the social order in city space (socio) and physical structures of the road
(technical). This has a profound impact on the macro-level, where the change of global perception of
urban space is needed in order to accept shared spaces as solutions in traffic planning. This means that
the institutions, social structures and perceptions are to be changed, which constitutes the process as a
transition in the sense Shove and Walker describe it (Shove & Walker, 2007).
Viewing the rising popularity of shared spaces as a transitional process is essential for understanding
how big and deep the change is, and what is required for it to actually occur.
According to transition theory, a novelty needs time in order to develop in a niche and be fully defined
(Shove & Walker, 2007). This explains why there is no clear definition of what shared space really is
yet and why we can observe different ideas about it that compete with each other in different projects.
Even though transition is a process that is hard to control, powerful actors can partially drive or guide
it by using their resources to encourage the institutional and structural transformation (Foxon, et al.,
2009). The social networks and lobbying groups that promote the idea are helpful (Jorgensen, 2012).
The government, even the local one, can play the important role here (Rotmans, et al., 2001). It can
provide the experimental space for development of radical ideas like shared space, so the concept can
grow and shape before being introduced on the wider scale without being neglected by forces of
existing regime (Geels, 2005). A good example that shows how it can look in practise are Dutch
projects. Shared space as an urban design approach was a successful experiment in several small
towns there. (Moody & Melia, 2013)
In order to get out of the niche and challenge the dominant regime, the innovation needs a window of
opportunity. As explained in the previous section, such a gap can be created by tensions within the
existing socio-technical regime that is caused by internal fractures and shortcomings of that regime
(Geels, 2005). In the field of street design and traffic engineering such tensions are easily observable.
Growth in the number of cars and other participants of the traffic and the limited space within city
structures cause a lot of problems for the users themselves as well as for people who try to solve these
issues. The dominant paradigm, built on the importance of restraining and guiding traffic and on
continuous efforts in trying to keep it under control causes the enormous amount of regulations.
Proponents of shared space argue that this only worsen the situation. The domestic issues (see Chapter
2.1) within the regime grow and this growth is not possible to stop by actions that characterize the
regime’s nature (Geels, 2005). The inefficiency of regulatory approach is one of the most important
arguments raised in the shared space discussion.
21
Image 2.2 Overregulated junction (Hamilton-Baillie, 2008, p. 131)
Another thing that can be interpreted as a window of opportunity is the gaps in the landscape that are a
result of new topics that gain popularity in society. New, ‘hot’ topics in the debate, regarding issues
associated with the current system, that appear on the landscape, can open up a possible space for the
discussion of radically different solutions such as shared space.
Transition theory also explains the unquestionable complexity of the process in which shared space
can possibly find public acceptance and be adapted more commonly into planning practice. For
innovative ideas such as shared space, niche development is critical and only the room for
experimentation it provides can enable the change of regimes. However, as the required shift is large,
the change must happen incrementally so that it finds its way through the existent systemic structure.
(Geels, 2005)
Transitions happen as a result of co-evolution and mutual adaptation on all three levels of the multilevel perspective (Shove & Walker, 2007). Throughout this process, the experimental projects of
shared space play a role in reforming the social networks that stabilize the dominant regime of how we
design our cities. As the result of this reciprocal process, the shape and understanding of the idea itself
can change as well.
22
3.
Analytical Framework
In order to analyse the empirical case and carry out our conclusions, we need to create an analytical
framework that provides us with specific knowledge and tools to conduct analysis. The aim of this
chapter is to present the way in which we worked on the project and make it understandable for the
reader. The chapter consists of four sections. In the beginning, we will introduce the research design
that shows the steps in our report, and then present scientific considerations about the way we
understand knowledge. We will also provide the theoretical background about the discourse analysis
that we conduct, and the way it is utilized in the report. In the end, we will present different types of
data that we used in order to gather information about the case and theories.
3.1 Research Design
In order to answer the research questions, organized structure is necessary. This section explains the
report’s approach to tackle the problem introduced in the problem formulation. The aim of this part is
to describe in detail what the connection between the chapters is, where and how the sub-questions are
expected to be answered, and how this leads to the main conclusions. The process of our work is
represented by the following figure:
Shared space
Problem
Theoretical framework
Analytical framework
Transitions (MLP)
framework
Shared space as
Social constructivism
Discourse analysis
a
new socio-technical
regime
Data collection protocol
Case
1
Conclusions
of the
2
Conclusions of
the case
research
Figure 3.1 Research Design
23
Firstly, in the introduction the investigated problem is introduced and narrowed down to the main
research questions that give a clear goal to the report and are answered with the help of supporting
sub-questions that focus on different aspects of the problem step by step.
The second step in the research is the creation of a theoretical framework. The aim of doing this is to
tackle and answer the first sub-question. As the approach of the research is to explain the
implementation of shared space through transition theory, the theoretical part focuses on transition
processes. The chapter explains transition theory and gives an overview of different theories about
transition processes. Later, the focus is narrowed down to the multi-level perspective of transition as
the main theoretical framework for the analysis. The section presents the theory about multi-level
perspective in detail. It describes what the different levels are, what roles they play in the transition
process and how transition takes place within those levels. In order to answer the first sub-question
transition theory is applied to the process of moving towards shared space as a solution for designing
urban space. The main point here is to attempt to see how the implementation of the shared space
concept on a wider scale can be considered and analysed as a transition. In order to do this, different
elements of shared space and the overall problematic of street design, street perception and traffic
behaviour are put into the frame of multi-level perspective. The aim of the chapter is to provide an
understanding of the consequences of looking at the move towards shared space as a transition process
for the analysis of the empirical case.
The second step consists of developing the analytical framework that can later be applied to the
empirical case. It contains a section about social constructivism, which explains the way we
understand knowledge and see data. Later the focus moves to introducing discourse analysis from a
theoretical point of view, as discourse analysis is chosen as the main tool to analyse the case. The main
aim of this part is to provide theoretical knowledge about what discourses are, how they change and
influence reality. In the end of chapter, we present the types of data used in the research as sources of
information and materials for the analysis.
The next step in the report is the empirical study. Here the focus is on the planning process of
Exhibition Road in central London. At first, in order to provide a full picture of the process, a timeline
of events is created and the main conflicts in the process are presented. This is followed by the
analysis of the case in which the analytical tool of discourse analysis is used to understand identified
processes (marked by number 1 in the figure 3.1). At this point, the second sub-question is answered
as it touches the descriptive aspect of the case study. An analysis of the story-lines and the
interactions of actors representing different discourses through these story-lines enables us to answer
the third sub-question and by doing that, carry out the conclusions of the empirical study.
As the last step in the report, the conclusions of the case study of Exhibition Road are projected to the
theoretical framework of transitions (marked by number 2 in the figure 3.1). The main obstacles that
appeared in the planning process are presented in the light of seeing the rising acceptance of shared
spaces as a transition. The final conclusions are drawn about the progress of the transition process
towards having shared space as a more preferable design solution. Some projections are also made
about the future development of the shared space idea, with predictions about potential issues and
complications that can occur on the occasion of future projects based on the shared space concept.
After presenting and explaining the research design of this report, we are now going to introduce the
theory of science that had decisive impact on our approach to the analysis.
24
3.2 Theory of Science
We are aware of the fact that the scientific approach that we take in this report has an immense
influence on the way we understand our data and carry out analysis. In this section, we show which
theory of science we use, why it is so important for our work and how we are looking at the available
sources of information.
The theory of knowledge that is significantly influential within this project and can help to understand
the way we treated data is social constructionism. It is a theory of science that deals with issues of
describing the nature of reality and is an approach to analysing qualitative data (Andrews, 2012). The
field of interest of social constructionism is the process in which knowledge appears in society and the
implications it can have on understanding the world. According to the theory, knowledge is
constructed, not discovered by the human mind (Andrews, 2012). It means that meanings are attached
to the internal process that happens in the mind of the observer (Burr, 1995). This implies that the
reality is not objective. The theory puts a focus on the impact of cultural and contextual factors on the
process of knowledge creation. It provides a useful insight on the fact that observation is not really an
accurate reflection of the world or the object that is being observed or described.
This is summarized by Andrews in the following way:
“[…] reality is socially defined but this reality refers to the subjective experience of everyday
life, how the world is understood rather than to the objective reality of the natural world.”
(Andrews, 2012)
We all as human beings are only able to see reality through our experience and excluding the
influence of the context on our perception is impossible. Therefore, our knowledge is created and
modified throughout social interactions. (Burr, 2003)
Understanding the basis of social constructionism influences the methodology of research. Noticing
that knowledge is not independent from context and being aware of the fact that the way we
understand the world depends heavily on our actions and interpretation are grounded in our cultural
and historical experience, enables us to be critical towards information that we find (Andrews, 2012).
Constructionism also makes it possible to have a reflection on the validity and objectivity of
arguments that are produced by other people (Andrews, 2012).
Language plays a major role in this process of creating knowledge, as it is the main mean that is used
to transfer information in human interaction (Burr, 1995). It is the language that enables us to create
thoughts and concepts. The fact that we use it to describe those concepts and observations means that
language becomes a tool for “structuring the way in which the world is experienced” (Andrews,
2012). The meaning is given to objects and phenomenon only after it is being described. That gives
the chance for knowledge to spread and be modified through social interactions.
All the insight presented above has an impact on our work since the main tool used in studying the
empirical case is discourse analysis. In this analysis, we mainly use data that was produced by
different actors that were in some way engaged in the planning process, or was directly collected by us
through interview (see Appendix A and B). The social constructionist approach means that we need to
analyse the information critically and deconstruct it, as it is influenced by the contexts of those who
created it. Deconstruction is the critical analysis of the text, where text is understood as “[…] any
printed, visual, oral or auditory production that’s available for reading, viewing or hearing.”
25
(Denzin, 1995, p. 52). Deconstruction is done by looking at the text, being aware of the context in
which the sources were created. This enables us to see how the process and related issues were seen by
different actors. By doing this, we are able to identify stories and interpretations that give an overview
of the actors’ perception over various aspects of the project. This is only possible if we take a critical
look and are aware of the fact that our sources do not contain information that is independent of the
context and experience of the author, who understands the whole process from his unique point of
view. Critical analysis also makes it possible to see how actors used language and concepts in order to
communicate their arguments and gain power.
Another important aspect of social constructionism that is worth considering in relation to our report is
the finding that there is a relationship between language that describes certain concepts and human
actions that shape physical reality around us (Andrews, 2012). Therefore, the fact that reality is not
objective and knowledge or concepts are constantly modified by social interactions can be a starting
point for understanding possible conflicts between different actors. Some issues can appear to have
different meaning for the actors because of the context in which they perceive reality. The idea of
shared space is such an issue.
To summarize, social constructionism provides a useful insight on the way in which information
contained in various sources of data should be considered and what we should have in mind when we
attempt to analyse our sources and extract information relevant for our work. This approach to
knowledge enables us to use the discourse analysis as our main analytical tool in the report. The next
section will detail this analytical approach.
3.3 Discourse Analysis
In this section, the theoretical background for discourse analysis is presented, together with its
relevance for studying urban processes. This is followed by the practical method used in the case study
of this report.
As Sandercock says, “Stories and storytelling can be powerful agents or aids in the service of change,
as shapers of a new imagination of alternatives.” (Sandercock, 2003). However, they can just as easily
be used as a tool to halt change. In many planning situations, there are multiple stories circulating,
competing for attention and hegemony, competing for power in order to influence the outcome
(Throgmorton, 1992).
In order to investigate why the design of shared space in the planning process of Exhibition Road was
changed, we are going to look at the stories that had an influence on the planning process. We are
going to use discourse analysis to this end: we are going to analyse how the different discourses in
relation to road use – and the actors representing them – competed for power and influence throughout
the planning process.
According to Hajer (1995), a discourse is:
“[…] a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced,
and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical
and social realities.” (Hajer, 1995, p. 42).
It is important to highlight that this definition includes not only language and ideas, but also related
practices as part of the discourse. This way it connects the stories told to how they are influenced by
26
reality as well as how they influence reality. It also points at other aspects that are important for
understanding discourses and the way they struggle for dominance: the manner in which the stories are
told and retold, and how they are changed through this process.
Discourse analysis is a way to analyse how society makes sense of certain phenomena (Hajer, 2005).
In the case of discourses about the ways roads are used, it can be a tool to analyse how different
segments of society understand roads and the ways in which different members of the traffic are
supposed to act. It can also highlight how this understanding is influenced by practices: for example
through regulations and policies about road design and road use.
The reason discourse analysis is a useful tool for understanding processes in society – and in the urban
life – is that language in discourse analysis is seen as active as opposed to passive. It is not merely a
descriptive tool; it also enables people to influence reality by talking about it in certain ways. (Hajer,
2005) Since we learn from others’ interpretations of the world (Burr, 2003), language has the power to
influence our way of thinking. By talking about events or ideas in specific ways, those events can be
rendered harmless or conflicts around certain ideas can be created in the ears of those listening (Hajer,
2003). As a result, analysing texts can provide an insight into the processes of learning in society and
in the way actors manipulate processes by the use of certain linguistic tools.
Since discourses reflect the way people think about certain phenomena (Burr, 2003) as well as the
practices that produce and reproduce these ways of thinking (Hajer, 1995), they can be an important
tool in the analysis of transitions in the multi-level perspective. They cover segments of the landscape
level of transitions as well as the regime. To make this more specific, some examples can be pointed
out: in the landscape level, discourses can be seen as representing the ideas and values of people, while
in the regime level they are produced and reproduced through regulations and policies. In some cases,
emerging discourses also appear in niches, in relation to novelty developments. As such, discourse
analysis can reveal the connection between these different levels of realities and as a result, it can be
used to analyse transitions - the interactions between emerging and established ways of thinking and
the practices in which the ways of thinking are produced and reproduced. It is important to note that
the multi-level perspective about transitions covers a broader area than discourse analysis can, as
discourse analysis does not directly cover changes in the built environment, or projects appearing in
niches for example. However, for the abovementioned reasons, discourse analysis is still a useful
analytical tool to get an insight into transition processes.
Because the way people make sense of the world around them, of practices and different phenomena,
is influenced by the historical and cultural context people live in (see Chapter 3.2), it is important to
study discourses in connection with their cultural and historical context. This highlights meanings that
are specific both to the discourse and the context, making the analysis more clear and precise, as well
as makes it possible to point out connections between discourses and practices. (Burr, 2003)
Deciding which discourses to choose for the analysis can be difficult and it also reflects on the
researchers’ point of view and their preconceptions of the case in question (Burr, 2003). The choice
should also reflect on the “site” or context of the discourse analysis, i.e. the institutional context in
which the analysed statements and utterances are made (Hajer, 2005).
In order to make the analysis more clear, some further definitions are going to be introduced. We use
the concepts of story-lines and discourse coalitions. Furthermore, we discuss the idea of competition
between discourses and their struggle to become dominant (Hajer, 1995; 2005).
27
Story-lines are the parts of discourses that help in understanding and spreading the ideas behind them.
They give meaning to the world by “bring[ing] together previously unrelated elements of reality” and
“help[ing] people to fit their bit of knowledge, experience or expertise into the larger jigsaw of a
policy debate” (Hajer, 2003, p. 104). In other words, they connect different ideas and concepts and
create a coherent story. In this way, they help communication between actors in a planning process.
Once the story-lines become a widely accepted part of a certain discourse, they can be used as shorthands in relation to these discourses (Hajer, 1995; 2005), which makes it possible to talk about certain
problems or ideas without necessarily explaining all the reasons and implications.
The meaning of a story-line is not necessarily agreed upon by the different actors. Even though it is
often assumed that the hearer understands the story in the exact way that the teller intends them to, the
individual’s interpretation plays a key role in understanding stories (see Chapter 3.2). This, according
to Hajer, is not a problem as such, it is merely something to point out and consider in the analysis.
(Hajer, 2003) It means that it is possible for actors who represent different discourses to ‘share’ a
story-line and refer to it, but disagree on the actual meaning of this story-line. This disagreement
happens because discourse influence the way actors interpret reality as well as certain story-lines: the
short-hand nature of story-lines means that they rely on the individuals’ interpretation of their full
meaning (Hajer, 1995; 2005). This creates what we refer to in this paper as ‘contested’ story-lines:
story-lines that actors disagree about.
Discourse coalitions are formed if different actors share the same story-lines or discourses. Discourse
coalitions can be defined in a number of different ways. They can refer to either “the ensemble of (1) a
set of story-lines; (2) the actors who utter the story-lines; (3) the practices in which this discursive
activity is based.” (Hajer, 1995, p. 65). The latter again connecting the discourses and story-lines to
the practices in which they are produced and reproduced. Discourse coalitions are used in this report to
identify groups of actors representing the different discourses and using them in their struggle for
power in the planning process.
Hajer also relates discourses to power and dominance. There are different levels of dominance: a
discourse first becomes dominant in a specific setting, and then it goes even further and becomes part
of the institutional and organizational practices. In the first step, central actors are pressured to accept
the power of the emerging discourse, whereas in the second step the discourse becomes powerful
enough to fundamentally influence the policy – or planning – process. When these levels of
dominance are fulfilled by a given discourse, that discourse can be considered dominant. (Hajer, 2005)
Story-lines are an important aspect of the power struggle between discourses, as actors use them to
spread their interpretation of reality, to “suggest certain social positions and practices, and criticize
alternative social arrangements.” (Hajer, 2005, p. 304). This means that when discourses struggle for
dominance, they do so by representing a certain view of reality, while also criticizing the approaches
suggested by other, new or existing discourses through story-lines. In this way, story-lines become the
platform for the competition for dominance between discourses.
However, since dominant discourses are constantly reproduced by practices – both by policies and
other rules existing to assure the dominance of the discourse and by people routinely acting in
accordance with the discourse – they define what is considered ‘normal’, ‘natural’ or ‘traditional’ in
society. This is what Hajer refers to as the “highest form of discourse institutionalization” (Hajer,
2005, p. 303). This means that emerging discourses have to try to gain power in an environment that
28
involves actors who were socialized to exist and work according to the dominant discourse. These
actors will use their position of power to persuade others to also work and exist according to this
dominant view of reality. This persuasion can happen purposefully or unwittingly, and is influenced
by institutionalized convictions and approaches that are in harmony with the dominant discourse.
Thus, actors representing the emerging discourse might need to “break the structured way of seeing”
(Hajer, 2005, p. 303).
Relating the connection between discourses and power to politics, language is a tool that can “make
politics” (Hajer, 2005, p. 300), to shift power-structures and have an impact on the tools of politics: on
policy-making and institutions (Hajer, 2005). By using discourse analysis, one can get an insight into
how these processes happen: how language and story-lines are used consciously or unconsciously to
gain power by different actors, in order to affect policies and institutions.
Analysing discourses through a number of texts is beneficial, since it provides the opportunity to
investigate the relationships between these texts. This is what Hastings (Hastings, 2013) refers to as
intertextuality, which means a focus on references between different texts. These references can be
implicit or explicit, conscious or unconscious. They can happen by directly repeating certain elements
from another text, or by referring to the overall meaning of another text. Analysing the intertextual
relations is important, because it reveals details about the interactions of actors and their powerrelations. (Hastings, 2013)
Another important aspect of texts is the linguistic tools used by the actors in order to emphasize and
empower their story-lines. These can be specific wordings used in the text that help to draw attention
to certain issues, as well as use of the power of contrast and emphasis in order to do the same.
Additionally, linguistic tools can include stylistic choices: the overall style used by actors that can add
to the power of the text. (Hastings, 2013)
The analysis in this report focuses on understanding a planning process through discourse analysis,
using sources from different actors in order to be able to analyse intertextual relations as well as the
ways in which actors manipulate reality by using certain linguistic tools.
In the following section, we will discuss the way we use discourse analysis in our case study.
Practical method
We begin with gathering sources about Exhibition Road and the planning process, in order to acquire
general information about our case. In this step, we aim to get as detailed a picture about the process as
possible and to create a timeline of events, which then helps us understand the main events and
conflicts. It provides an understanding of the context for the discourses. It also helps us identify some
central actors, who we can then reach out to for further information.
This second round of information gathering is more specific and leads directly to our analysis. We
visit webpages of actors and look up documents that we found references to in the previous step. Then
we arrange and conduct an interview (see Appendix A and B) with some of the key actors in order to
get more detailed first-hand information about certain aspects of the case. The interview will also be
used as part of the main analysis.
After this, we have enough information to begin the analysis. We map out the main discourses and the
actors representing them, banded together in discourse coalitions. The choice of discourses is
29
influenced by our knowledge of the case and the context, as well as by our general knowledge about
road design and road use. Then we focus on story-lines.
The story-lines included in the analysis are chosen because we know from the previous steps of the
research that they had an impact on the events in the planning process. We gather references to these
story-lines throughout the documents and analyse them, building them up through the sequence of
events we previously set up. We also investigate the interactions the actors had through and around
these story-lines in the analysed texts, to see whether they agreed or disagreed on their meanings.
During the analysis we are also interested in the way the actors communicated, the linguistic tools –
wording, style, etc. – they used when they told and retold the story-lines, as these possibly have served
to empower the actors as well as the discourses or story-lines that they represented. We are interested
whether this power-struggle had an influence on the outcome of the planning process.
The focus on the interactions between actors around specific story-lines enables us to link the storylines to the different discourses by seeing which actors refer to the specific story-lines and which
discourses these actors represent. This step allows us to specify the contested story-lines as well as the
discourses that use these story-lines in the struggle for dominance. In this step we analyse the impact
of the contested story-lines.
Finally, we create a timeline with the discourses and story-lines in order to understand the struggle for
power and influence in the planning process. This will allow us to see which discourses were
dominant in certain periods of the process as well as to see what impact the specific story-lines had on
the competition of discourses.
The conclusion of the analysis provides the answer for our first research question and is used in
answering the second research question as well.
The next section will present all types of sources that we used in order to collect data needed to write
this report.
3.4 Data Collection Protocol
In order to conduct the research and tackle the problems formulated in research questions, various
sources of data and information were used. The spectrum of different sources used during the work
varies from personal interviews to scientific literature and press articles. All data used in the report can
be classified as qualitative. The following part of the report sums up all the sources and explains in
detail their importance and relevance for the project work.
Literature
The research design and the research problem, which involved terms such as shared space or
transitions, required the collection of theoretical data aiming at a deeper understanding of those terms
and the theories built around them. In order to get better insight into the topic we conducted a
literature review that involved a selection of scientific articles. The articles were used in order to get a
knowledge about what shared space is, how it is understood by theorists and what are the basics of
logic behind it. The shared space concept was therefore the main area of focus of the first group of
studied articles. The topic of the next group was the transition process. As the problem formulation
describes (see Chapter 1.1), the aim of the project was to examine a real life example of shared space
30
and analysing it in a frame of transition as a process of change. Therefore, it required collection of
scientific papers that elaborated on the subject of transitions. The aim here was to get sufficient
knowledge about the field of transitions that would enable an understanding of the mechanisms of
transitions and make it possible to put the implementation of shared space within that frame. The third
group of literature is built around the topic of discourse analysis that was chosen as the main method
in the case analysis.
All sources of data in this category were selected having in mind the criteria of validity and
information quality. Therefore, only official, scientific articles written by professionals in relevant
fields were used.
Interview & email questions
The main source of primary information about the project was an ~1,5 hour interview conducted by
the research team during the field trip to London. The aim of the interview was to get in-depth
knowledge about the role of the interviewees in the process and to gather data about crucial actions
taken by different actors in the process that was important for filling in the timeline of events. The
audio recording of the interview can be found in Appendix A, and a full transcript is available in
Appendix B.
It was executed in the form of a narrative interview (Bauer, 1996) followed up by a series of clarifying
questions. The narrative interview is conceptually based on letting the interviewee to tell the story
freely, without the frame of a question-response process. This creates an opportunity for getting
information from the perspective of the interviewee and limits the possible influence on answers that
can be provoked by certain series of questions. In this way, the interview follows self-generating
scheme in which the interviewee is able to choose topics that he/she considers relevant or important.
(Bauer, 1996)
The aim was to give the interviewees a chance to speak openly about the process and draw a timeline
of events. That was crucial in order to get more detailed knowledge about moments important for the
process and fill in the blanks in the timeline constructed by the research team on the base of other
sources. Another important point was to possibly limit the influence of questions, to get the story told
freely and to enable the interviewees to show their emotional engagement, as they were people who
played significant roles in the planning process of Exhibition Road. The interview was also expected
to provide material for the analysis of discourses within the process.
The narrative part of the interview was followed by spontaneous as well as previously prepared
questions that aimed clarifying the information proceeded by the interviewees. It also was aimed at
collecting answers about their overall opinion about the project, its success or failure, their opinion
about the idea of shared space and its situation in the United Kingdom, their opinion about the process
of planning Exhibition Road and behaviour of different actors during that process.
Additionally, the research team decided to attempt to get more information about the project of
Exhibition Road from various other important actors. This was done through a series of previously
prepared questions that were sent by e-mail. The questions regarded mainly the topic of the role of
particular actors in the project, opinion about the final design of Exhibition Road and their concerns
about it. The e-mail correspondence that we used for the analysis can be found in Appendix C of the
report.
31
Press Articles
Another source of data used in the report is the information contained in numerous articles published
in press over the course of the planning process. The redesign of Exhibition Road was a very
important event that got quite a big media exposure. Therefore, press articles could serve as a source
of information about what details of the process were available to the broader public. It also provided
data about how the planning process was perceived from outside and could help to identify emotions
and story-lines built by actors that represented different discourses.
The research was based on the review of different articles that could be found via internet when
looking for details about Exhibition Road planning process. The set of used articles consists of texts
published in British newspapers available online, articles published on other websites and blog entries.
Data collected in this way was mostly used in the discourse analysis as the press and other media play
an important role in communication and are a platform that can be used by different actors to present
their point of view, build their story-lines and get power for the supported discourse.
The articles also supplied useful information about certain factual aspects of the case. In order to
guarantee reliability of sources that provided facts for creating the timeline of events, we selected only
texts written by people engaged in the process or published by reputable newspapers or websites.
However, this was not a concern for the sources used in the discourse analysis, as in that case the most
important aspect was to analyse a wide variety of opinions.
Public Documents
Another source of data that was used during the research was public documents. Under this category
there can be gathered all documentation published on the official website of the project and the
council, reports from official meetings and reports published by certain groups of actors to support
their stakes. These documents provided detailed, step by step information about the planning process
of Exhibition Road and enabled the construction of a detailed timeline of events that were important
for shaping the process and the final outcome. Reports from cabinet meetings were the main source of
information about the decisions taken during the process, the reasons behind them and the actions
taken by all influential actors. Moreover, the public documents provided material for the discourse
analysis as it contained correspondence between different actors engaged in the process and other
documents published by them. These documents provided useful insight into the specific topic that
certain actors were interested in and therefore was helpful for the discourse analysis.
In this chapter, the analytical framework of our research was presented. The research design was
introduced, followed by the theory of science that guided our analysis. After this, the main analytical
tool of the report – discourse analysis – was discussed, together with the types of data used in the
report.
After presenting our theoretical and analytical framework, it is now possible to move on to the
empirical case.
32
4.
Empirical Study – The case of Exhibition Road
In this chapter, the investigated case is introduced in detail, including a timeline of important events
and details of the implemented design. This is followed by the analysis of the case. The goal of this
chapter is to gain an understanding about the attempt at implementing a shared space scheme at
Exhibition Road in London and how the process was influenced by the difference in ideological (or
practical) background and power struggles between the actors in the process. In order to gain this
understanding, we analyse the clash of discourses in the planning process.
4.1 Case Description
Exhibition Road is situated in South Kensington in central London (Exhibition Road, 2010). It is a
very busy and central road with a large amount of pedestrian visitors as well as car traffic. Towards the
end of the 20th century it became obvious that the road needed to be changed in order to serve the
needs of the institutions in the area as well as the visitors and residents. (RBKC, 2009; Appendix A)
Image 4.1 Map of Exhibition Road and South Kensington (Google Inc., 2014)
The idea of a new design for Exhibition Road originated in the 1990’s, when a project with a similar
name, Exhibition Way, was in the making. A concept design was produced that included an
underground visitor centre for the museums along the road. However, in 1997, the museums who were
part of the project backed out. This has brought the project to a halt, as funding was no longer
possible. (Appendix A) Around 2000, a new opportunity presented itself, and the project was revived
in 2002 as part of the Mayor of London’s 100 Public Spaces Programme. It was one of ten pilot
projects aimed at creating high quality public spaces in London in order to deliver an “urban
renaissance” (Mayor of London, 2003).
Even though there was already a concept design, the museums had different expectations this time
around. Free entry to museums in the United Kingdom have been re-established in November 2001,
33
and as a result, the visitor centre was no longer needed. (Appendix A) This led to an architectural
competition in 2003, held by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea about the design of
Exhibition Road.
The requirements for the competition were clearly set. Firstly, the design must indicate the point that
“South Kensington is looking to the future” (Appendix C), determining new norms in urban design.
The design must be elegant, modern, classic, inspiring and unforgettable. It should also grant a
platform for the visitor development strategies of the institutions in the area, forming the most
motivating and welcoming environment in London. With the design, foot and vehicular traffic should
be integrated efficiently, granting a pleasant environment for pedestrians whilst keeping the important
functions of the road. It was important that the design must keep and improve comfort and quality of
life for people who live in the area. Additionally, it needed to meet the increased demand and
modifications in visitors’ attitudes – a result of the free entry –, as well as reassure better use and
access to the pedestrian tunnel that runs underneath Exhibition Road, connecting the institutions in the
area with the South Kensington Underground station. Resident parking within the area had to be kept,
with added coach parking possibilities, and easy access to bus services. Most of all, it was important
“in respect of access, to follow the principles of ‘inclusive design’ in ensuring that the route at both
street level and underground will meet the highest levels of accessibility and inclusion for all members
of the community, regardless of disability, age or sex.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 119). (Appendix C; RBKC,
2009)
The competition was won by the architect firm Dixon Jones. They were appointed as lead designers
for the road in 2004. It was decided to pave the street as a single surface with a chequer board pattern
of dark and light granite (RBKC, 2009), which was considered the most fundamental element of the
design for the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (the Council) and the
Exhibition Road Team.
In late 2004, the Delivery Board appointed for the project decided that the design would follow the
shared space approach. (RBKC, 2009) The goal was to “make Exhibition Road the most accessible
cultural destination in the world for all users” (RBKC, 2010).
The idea of using a shared space scheme in this project was influenced by a previous project in
Kensington High Street where “decluttering” took place: “railings have been taken down, kerbs
removed, signs packed away, bicycle islands added, and accident numbers cut […]” (The Guardian,
2007). The scheme in Kensington High Street resulted in a decrease in the number of accidents and
improved aesthetics, which made the use of the shared space concept a possibility in the Exhibition
Road project (The Guardian, 2008). Councillor Daniel Moylan, who was responsible for the
Kensington High Street project, pushed the shared space concept to be implemented in Exhibition
Road as well.
Members of the Delivery Board included the three project partners: the Kensington and Chelsea
Council, the Mayor of London – Ken Livingstone at the time – and Westminster Council (Appendix
A). Additionally, institutions of the area of Exhibition Road and English Heritage was involved. Their
goal was “to manage the governance of the scheme and ensure the project progressed to the agreed
programme.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 17). As the museums backed out of the previous scheme, they were not
involved as partners, only as members of the Delivery Board (Appendix A). The lead officer for the
project was Bill Mount, who have been working on the Exhibition Way project as well, and was
involved with delivering the new design for Exhibition Road since 1997 (Appendix A).
34
The Delivery Board has agreed to establish an Access Group for the project in order to address
accessibility disability issues. The group consisted of the Council’s Sensory Impairment Team, the
Council’s Access Officer, Action Disability Kensington and Chelsea (ADKC), Hammersmith and
Fulham Action Disability (HAFAD), access representatives of Museums on Exhibition Road, the
Imperial College, Transport for London (TfL) and the Greater London Authority. They were joined by
the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (Guide Dogs), who work on assuring accessibility of public
places for blind and partially sighted people (Guide Dogs, 2014), in May 2005. (RBKC, 2009)
In early 2005, the Board appointed David Bonnett Associates as the Access Consultant for the
Exhibition Road project. David Bonnett Associates is an architectural access consultancy, specialised
in Inclusive Design (DBA, n.d.). In the autumn of 2005, public consultation about the project began,
involving both local residents and visitors of the area. (RBKC, 2009; Appendix A)
In 2006, David Bonnett Associates have launched a Consultation Workshop on inclusive design in
relation to Exhibition Road. They have also produced an Access Audit Report on the assessment of the
accessibility of Exhibition Road at the time, in order to outline the necessary improvements. This was
followed by a Design Report on the existing concept design by Dixon Jones, addressing accessibility
issues of the scheme in order to move towards a more detailed design as the next step of the project.
(RBKC 2009; Appendix A)
Parallel to this process, Guide Dogs launched a research into the safety of shared space schemes in
2006 (RBKC, 2009), and later into tactile surfaces that could replace kerbs on the edge between the
pedestrian and vehicle zones in single surface layouts, where a raised kerb was not present to help
blind or partially sighted people navigate. This latter research was later taken over by TfL. (Appendix
A)
In September 2008, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) published a
statement on the safety of shared spaces as well, naming a number of concerns about safety and
accessibility of such schemes. Furthermore, in March 2009 ADKC joined the Guide Dogs campaign
against shared spaces as well, and Guide Dogs expressed their opposition to the “single surface”
scheme in a letter to the Council of Kensington and Chelsea. (RBKC, 2009) All in all, there seems to
have been a general concern from disability groups about the concept – possibly both the shared space
and single surface schemes.
By April 2009, a revised design has been proposed that moved away from a shared space towards a
single surface, as mentioned above. This scheme meant that there would be designated areas for
pedestrians and vehicles, but without a raised kerb to mark the border between these areas. The kerb
would be replaced by a tactile surface. This design option was inspired by the second Guide Dogs
research report, produced by Rambøll Nyvig in 2007. The design was presented to the Access Group,
the Community Involvement Group and finally to the Delivery Board in the spring of 2009. (RBKC,
2009)
In the meantime, the Exhibition Road Team was working on getting the project funded. Originally,
they attempted to acquire public funds for the project from the Heritage Lottery Fund, who manage the
financing of such large-scale public developments. However, after about a year-and-a-half-long
application process, in 2007 it became clear that this was not possible due to the London Olympic
games being mainly financed from this Fund. Finally, in 2009, the Mayor of London agreed to pay for
35
about half of the development, with the condition that the road has to be rebuilt and reopened in time
for the 2012 Olympic Games. The rest of the money came from the other project partners: mostly from
the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but the Royal Borough of Westminster also took part.
The difficulties of financing the project meant that there were no important decisions made about the
detailed design between 2004-5 and 2009. (Appendix A, C)
At a council meeting in July 2009, the Cabinet of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
agreed on the implementation of the single surface scheme. It was selected out of five different
proposed schemes, including a completely shared space and more conservative options with raised
kerbs as well. (RBKC, 2009)
Moving ahead with the project was important at this point, because the construction needed to be
finished before the London Olympics in 2012. This meant that construction works needed to begin.
(Appendix A)
After deciding on the design details, construction started. Stage 1 of the project – the redesign of a
one-way system on the southern end of the road – was finished in December 2009. Construction of
Stage 2 – the actual Exhibition Road scheme – was started in February 2010 and was finished 2 years
later, in February 2012 when the road was officially re-opened.
Image 4.2 - Exhibition Road before and after implementation of the new design
(http://eyeonportland.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/exhibition-road.jpg)
After work started on Stage 2 of the project, a newsletter was launched by the project partners. It was
delivered to people in the Exhibition Road area with the purpose of informing them about the project’s
progress, and also to introduce specific people and the work they were doing on the project (RBKC et
al., 2010).
36
However, the implementation process did not go without any trouble. Guide Dogs for the Blind in the
end of October 2009 attempted to take legal actions against Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
with regard to the Exhibition Road project in order to “[...] secure the best outcome for blind and
partially sighted people [...]” (politics.co.uk, 2010). They applied for judicial review of the plans
because of the perceived unsafe nature of shared space and the single surface in Exhibition Road.
However, in the beginning of 2010, their application was rejected.
The attempt to take legal action resulted in an open letter to Guide Dogs by the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea, where the Borough highlighted that both parties have a similar goal: creating
“the most accessible cultural destination in the world” in the Exhibition Road (RBKC, 2010). They
also expressed their willingness to work hand in hand with Guide Dogs to pursue this aim.
In the end, an agreement with Guide Dogs was reached when RBKC “confirmed its intention to
conduct real world trials to test its proposed design for Exhibition Road” (politics.co.uk, 2010). In
Stage 1 of the project, the corduroy tactile was used as the delineation between the different zones of
the road, and site testing of it was done. The results showed that corduroy performed well and decision
to use it in Stage 2 was confirmed (Appendix A).
37
Details of the design
The implemented design, referred to as a “single surface”, has some significant differences compared
to the concept of shared spaces. There are designated vehicle and pedestrian traffic zones, designated
resident and blue-badge (disabled) parking, and on the western side, the pedestrian zone is further
divided into a “safe” and “transition” zone. Some of these zones are separated by street furniture,
providing a very distinct delineation. Furthermore, the bus stops and coach drop-off points are
provided with a raised kerb, enabling level access from the buses to the street surface. On the other
hand there are no raised kerbs or other physical barriers separating the different zones, which creates a
space that is used more freely than a traditional road.
The safe zone is the one closest to the building line, followed by the delineating tactile surface and a
contrast-colour (black) drainage, which also helps partially sighted people in navigating. This is
followed by the transition zone, which is also mainly for pedestrians, but bicycle traffic is also
allowed. The position of this zone is supposed to provide additional safety for pedestrians in the safe
zone, as a kind of “buffer zone” between the parking zone and the safe zone. The parking zone is
followed by the two-way traffic, and on the other side there is again the drainage line, the tactile
surface and finally the pedestrian zone in front of the building line. The layout is illustrated in Figure
4.1:
Figure 4.1 Exhibition Road final design (own work based on RBKC, 2009)
Creating the timeline of events has helped us identify some of the most important events and dates, as
well as the main actors in the planning process of Exhibition Road. Now we are going to move on to
the analysis of the case.
38
4.2 Analysis of the Case
In the rest of the chapter, we first introduce the discourses identified in the planning process of
Exhibition Road, and the actors grouped around these discourses in Chapter 4.2.1. Afterwards, in
Chapter 4.2.2, we introduce and analyse the different story-lines identified from the texts studied
during the case study. This provides us with an understanding of how actors in the different discourse
coalitions interacted through these story-lines, attempting to use them to gain power and influence the
planning process. Finally, in Chapter 4.2.3, we link these story-lines back to the discourses, and
summarize their impact on the design of shared space.
4.2.1 Discourses in the planning process
Three discourses about road design can be recognised from the case study of Exhibition Road in order
to analyse the way they compete for dominance throughout the planning process. These are:
 shared space
 traditional road
 single surface
These discourses were identified by us, following our analytical framework presented in Chapter 3.3,
because they represent the main ideologies about roads appearing in the process, the different ideas
about road design and road use influencing the implemented design of Exhibition Road.
The actors who participated in the planning process of Exhibition Road can be grouped around these
discourses into discourse coalitions as follows:
shared space
Cllr Daniel Moylan, Deputy
Leader of the Council
International researchers and
traffic engineers
traditional roads
single surface
Guide Dogs for the Blind (Guide
Dogs)
Council of the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea (the
Council)
Access Group
Action Disability Kensington and
Chelsea (ADKC)
Cabinet of the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea (the
Cabinet)
Disabled Person Transport
Advisory Committee (DPTAC)
Bill Mount, lead officer for the
project
Royal National Institute for Blind
People (RNIBP)
David Bonnett, the Access
Consultant
Figure 4.2 – Discourses and discourse coalitions in the planning process of Exhibition Road
In the following sections, the different discourses are introduced in detail, together with the actors
sharing them.
39
Shared space
This discourse is based on the idea of the “pure” shared space. “Pure” here refers to the fact that it
follows the theoretical concept in that it defines shared space as a place where road users share the
same space without delineated, separate zones being provided for pedestrians and cars, for parking,
etc.
The ‘shared space’ discourse had quite limited support in this case from actors in the planning process
of Exhibition Road, however it still played an important role. The discourse might be limited to one
(albeit important) actor in this specific case, but it has broader support internationally, especially
among theorists and researchers. As mentioned in the introduction, the first transnational conference
about shared space coincided with the beginnings of the planning process. From around that time,
there was international research concentrating on the implementation and impact of shared space
schemes (Shared Space, 2008).
This discourse was mainly represented by Cllr. Daniel Moylan, who was a member and deputy leader
of the Kensington and Chelsea Council at the time of the creation of the design of Exhibition Road
from 2004 until 2009. He is presented as an expert on shared spaces, who has studied them abroad
(The Guardian, 2008). He also got support from certain journalists, and the discourse has strong roots
in the European context (see Chapter 1). Before this project, he was the main proponent behind the
“decluttering” of Kensington High Street (The Guardian, 2012), which was also a step towards shared
space, albeit less ambitious than Exhibition Road (YouTube 1). The idea of “decluterring” at
Kensington High Street was to remove street clutter which was created by uncoordinated street
furniture, differing paving materials, “convoluted pedestrian crossing points and junction designs, and
highway signs.” (transfomingcities.co.uk, n.d.).
Some support for the shared space discourse and for Cllr. Moylan probably derived from the
decluttering of Kensington High Street. This support was however likely limited by the fact that that
was not a pure shared space scheme, with both the lanes for pedestrian and vehicle traffic and the
kerbs retained. Nevertheless, it was a success in terms of aesthetic improvements as well as in terms of
safety (The Guardian, 2008). This granted some support for Daniel Moylan and allowed people to see
the possible improvements provided by (limited) shared space schemes.
Many of the arguments referred to in this discourse are reproduced by other actors in the design
process of Exhibition Road, in order to win the favour of the public opinion on this experimental
scheme, such as references to pedestrian priority, to the safety and accessibility of shared spaces, the
aesthetic improvements shared space schemes grant and so on. These arguments will be referred to
below during the analysis of the specific story-lines.
However, some points Cllr. Moylan makes are quite open for more or less obvious counter-arguments,
such as the general applicability, especially in terms of being inclusive for all members of society.
Traditional road
While Cllr. Moylan was supporting the implementation of a “pure” shared space – or at least as pure
as possible –, there was a group of actors who were (and are) against the implementation of any kind
of shared space, as they perceive them highly discriminative.
40
The most important actors in relation to this discourse are different disability groups, who have wrote
letters, released publications and campaigned against a shared space or single surface being
implemented at Exhibition Road.
Guide Dogs for the Blind can be viewed as the central figure, but other groups also share the
traditional road discourse, such as the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), the
Royal National Institute for Blind People, the National Association of Disabled Supporters, as well as
the Access Group of the Exhibition Road project.
The main idea behind this discourse is the belief that traditional roads are safer than shared spaces,
because they separate the different users by kerbs and sometimes even railings. It also involves claims
about the problems related to accessibility and safety that shared spaces create for people with certain
disabilities, specifically for people with vision impairment. The reason for this is that these people
cannot negotiate these spaces with the help of eye-contact with other road users.
It can be seen from the description of the ‘shared space’ and ‘traditional road’ discourses that they
represent two fundamentally different and conflicting views about roads. Next, the third and final
discourse of the analysis will be introduced, which represents a middle ground between these two.
Single surface
The limited nature of the support for the ‘shared space’ discourse in the case of the design of
Exhibition Road together with the resistance towards shared spaces from the ‘traditional road’
discourse led to the emergence of a third discourse, which we label as the ‘single surface’ discourse.
This discourse evolves around a design where some elements of shared spaces are mixed together with
elements of the traditional road. This results in a single overall surface that still has separate zones for
vehicles and for pedestrians, as well as for parking, coach and bus drop-offs, etc.
This discourse is mainly represented by the majority of the Council, the Lead Officer of the Exhibition
Road Project (Bill Mount), the Exhibition Road Team, and the Access Consultant (David Bonnett
Associates).
The ‘single surface’ discourse, as the design, develops throughout the process, adding further elements
to the road in order to make it safer and to build consensus among actors in the process who are
opposing the scheme for specific reasons (this will be detailed below, under the specific story-lines).
The outcome of this evolution is the final implemented design, which was detailed in Section 4.1. This
‘single surface’ discourse represents the implemented design of the street in Exhibition Road.
Actors often refer to the single surface as a type of shared space. They describe shares space as not
having any definite properties apart from being less defined than a traditional road. According to this
view, shared space ranges from its pure form to any space that has less definition than what is
expected in traditional roads.
Actors who share this discourse view the implementation of single surfaces as a radical change (even
though it is arguably less radical than a pure shared space), and so do people who oppose shared
spaces, especially disabled, more specifically blind and partially sighted people. However, it is implied
in the interview we have conducted that actors within this discourse view the single surface as a
version of shared space that can be implemented within the regulations and rules defining roads in the
41
United Kingdom at the time of the project despite the radical nature of it, if it is carefully monitored.
(Appendix A)
4.2.2 Story-lines in the planning process
After the introduction of the discourses and discourse coalitions, the main body of analysis can begin.
The story-lines analysed below are selected by us because they are deemed important in the planning
process of Exhibition Road according to our research. They are seen as important either because they
act as catalysts for specific events or actions, or because they are strongly contested by the different
actors. This also means that some story-lines might be apparent through the whole process, and yet
they are not analysed as in our view they are of less significance.
The following story-lines can be identified as being influential in the planning process of Exhibition
Road:
Something has
to be done
Pedestrian
priority
Good but not
here
People are not
ready for this
Accessibility
Consensus
The
proportionality
argument
Figure 4.3 – Story-lines in the planning process of Exhibition Road
These story-lines are shared by actors in the process. The actors gathered around the story-lines might
all belong to the same discourse-coalition, but in some cases they represent different discourses. The
latter might cause the story-lines to be contested – by which we mean that actors who belong to one
discourse-coalition might agree with the statements belonging to a specific story-line, while actors
belonging to another discourse-coalition disagree with them (see Chapter 3.3). Because of this, storylines can be seen as the platform for the competition for dominance between discourses, referred to in
our analytical framework in Chapter 3.3. This means that actors reproduce these story-lines
representing their point of view, as a means to gain power and influence in the planning process. By
reproducing the story-line, the discourse that the actor represents is spread and also gains power –
which has an impact on the relative power of the discourse in the process and can lead to shifts in the
dominance of discourses. Additionally, arguing against the views represented by other discourses can
also weaken the position of those discourses.
The contested nature of the story-lines also means that it is not always apparent which story-lines
belong to which discourse. Because of this, the mapping of the connection between the discourses and
story-lines will be done after the analysis.
During the analysis, we pay special attention to certain things, according to our analytical framework
(see Chapter 3.3). First of all we focus on the linguistic tools used by actors in producing and
reproducing the story-lines: the specific wording in texts as well as the stylistic choices they make, as
these can affect the reader and as a result they are powerful tools in the clash of discourses.
Additionally, for the same reason, we are also interested in the intertextual connections in the case.
42
These connections might also provide insight on the relationship between actors and the way they
view each other in the process.
Something has to be done
The first story-line is about the layout of Exhibition Road as it existed before the redesign. It points
out some of the specific problems with the street and is used as an argument for the necessity of
change. In a sense, this story-line is the first catalyst of the change.
All of the actors involved in the process seem to agree on this story-line or at least not contest it
openly, as it appears in documents and publications from a wide variety of sources and actors’ claims,
such as the Council, the Access Consultant and in newspaper articles as well.
In the “Exhibition Road – Access Improvements Overview”, which was the outcome of the Access
Audit, Access Consultant David Bonnett pointed out the need of the street design to be improved due
to the fact that “the road at present does not serve the needs of disabled and older users, let alone all
other users” (RBKC, 2009, p. 115). He highlighted that the current situation of Exhibition Road “is
inadequate for many disabled people and creates physical and sensory barriers to access […]”
(RBKC, 2009, p. 79). David Bonnett also summarised the existing deficiencies at Exhibition Road as
follows:





“Difficulty of orientation, especially from the station, and ineffective signage or indication of
walking distances.
Insufficiently wide pavements relative to number of users.
Congestion of existing pavements, especially outside building entrances.
Extended distances between pedestrian crossing points.
Insufficient opportunities to cross the road without use of raised kerbs.” (RBKC, 2009, p.
116).
In our interview, David Bonnett pointed out the fact that in November 2001, when the museums
charges were eliminated, the number of visitors started to increase significantly. Referring to the
Natural History Museum together with Exhibition Road, he stated that it became “a victim of its own
success” (Appendix B, 02:09). This created a situation when it became hard to cope with the large
amount of visitors in the museums and the street as well. As David Bonnett stated: “The road could
not meet the requirements of the buildings [museums] and the public needs.” (Appendix B, 02:09).
Exhibition Road was not ready to deal with such a huge number of visitors every day. As a result, it
became “a street that did not work” (Appendix B, 26:36) and a dangerous environment for some
people, especially the disabled.
During the interview, Bill Mount, the lead officer of the project, also mentioned that people used to
walk on the road itself instead of the pavements because “it was just too crowded” (Appendix B,
54:55). Another argument for this story-line made by him was that even those who train blind people
how to use specific areas refused to do that in South Kensington area where Exhibition Road is
located. This was because it was too unsafe regarding pedestrians. He underlined that the street was
uncontrolled and totally inaccessible for disabled people, so “the blind people that did work in the
area […] used the tunnel to get access” to their work places by avoiding dangerous street (Appendix
B, 28:30).
Moreover, in the minutes of the July 2009 Cabinet meeting and the Annexes attached to it this storyline is frequently reflected. The Exhibition Road Team noted that the current design of the street was
43
not working how it should have been, caused a lot of problems and “that the road was very much
orientated towards vehicle traffic and unfriendly towards pedestrians and disabled people” (RBKC,
2009, p. 2) and had to be changed. The wording here refers to characteristics of traditional roads and
express a generally accepted opinion that the focus of road design needs to change from cars towards
pedestrians.
The criticism of the previous street design was also reflected in online publications. The reference to
the car-centred nature of the road is repeated in the following quote:
“[...] it had become a glorified car park, frequently choked with lines of coaches. And with the
grimy dual carriageway of the Cromwell Road cutting across it, it's no wonder that many
pedestrians preferred to take the dank Victorian tunnel that runs under Exhibition Road from the
tube station to the Science Museum.” (The Guardian, 2011)
It was as well called being vague, “having something lacking” (The Guardian, 2012) and it was stated
that it “wasn't quite living up to its name” (The Guardian, 2011).
In Daniel Moylan’s arguments in favour of shared spaces there is also support for this story-line, when
he claims that clutter is ugly and takes money to maintain, and “taking the clutter out actually saves
money in maintenance” (YouTube 2A, 2:24), underlining his argument on the impossible and
unattractive situation with a cartoon joke.
Image 4.3 - (YouTube 2A, 3:32)
He also stated that the goal with the new design “of this street would be to [create] somewhere which
really suits a world city like London in the 21st century.” (YouTube 1).
Overall, this story-line indicates some of the specific deficiencies about the road before the redesign,
thus emphasizing the need for change. Furthermore, it points towards the need for quite fundamental
change in the design philosophy, as the Access Audit points out many problems that lead to the current
design not being accessible. The story-line is not markedly contested by any of the actors, which
implies that the need for change is accepted by everyone involved in the process.
44
Accessibility
This story-line focuses on the question of accessibility of the street but has two vastly opposing
strands. The meaning and the focus of accessibility is strongly contested in the planning process, and
actors representing the different discourses - specifically those representing ‘single surface’ and
‘traditional road’ - have vastly opposing approaches to the topic.
The ‘single surface’ coalition concentrates on the benefits which shared space or a single surface can
provide for pedestrians and disabled people. Their view on this story-line is that this kind of scheme
ensures much better accessibility.
On the other side is the viewpoint of disability groups, particularly of Guide Dogs, who strongly state
that a single surface or shared space scheme is not accessible and is unsafe not only in the case of
Exhibition Road, but also generally in the United Kingdom. We will present and analyse the two
opposing points of view beginning with the opinion that the scheme at Exhibition Road will enhance
the accessibility of the road.
The ‘single surface’ side of the story-line is reflected in various documents made by the Exhibition
Road Team and Exhibition Road Access Group. It is also reflected quite widely in online articles. The
Council and the Access Consultant argue in favour of this view. The opinion presented by actors
representing the ‘traditional road’ discourse is presented in documents, reports and communications
from various disability groups, especially, as mentioned above, from Guide Dogs.
On the following pages, we analyse the story-line by grouping specific statements under different
overarching topics that appear throughout the planning process and are related to ‘accessibility’ in
order to help the .
The reasoning of the ‘single surface’ discourse
One of the main goals of the project was accessibility: “the most accessible [...] streetscape possible”
(Appendix B, 13:05, Appendix C). The Council in “The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Equality Impact Assessment” (RBKC, 2009, p. 95) reflected their goal to create “the highest levels of
accessibility” (RBKC, 2009, p. 96) and involvement of “all members of the community, regardless of
disability, age or sex” (RBKC, 2009, p. 96). This was specifically important for the project because of
regulations existing about inclusive design – defined in the Disability Equality Act of 1995 –, and as
David Bonnett pointed out in our interview, because many funding opportunities they explored
depended on the inclusion of accessibility in the design goals (Appendix A).
This aspect stayed widely emphasized throughout the whole process, since many of the actors
involved (the museums, the Council, etc.) also had goals about accessibility. (Appendix A). The
project had an Access Group, an Access Consultant, and both the Council and the Access Group had
an Access Champion (RBKC, 2009).
The actors argue for their view about the accessibility of the road by emphasizing the advantages and
benefits which the new design will create. One of their arguments is that this design will significantly
reduce crowding in the street by making pavements wider and creating a “roadway which will provide
more convenient and direct access (inclusive) for all users” (RBKC, 2009, p. 100).
Central to the arguments surrounding this story-line from the ‘single surface’ coalition are the
advantages which the new design of the street will give and these are constantly repeated in the
45
minutes from the Cabinet meeting in July 2009. At the Access Group’s meeting in May 2009 they
pointed out the benefits of the single surface design, especially focusing on pedestrians, and on
providing much wider sidewalks and various “considered accessibility and safety features” (RBKC,
2009, p. 65).
In the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting a summary of the advantages of the new Exhibition Road
design is given by The Royal Borough’s Access Officer:




“The proposal includes many more parking spaces for disabled people and dedicated dropoff areas.
All the controlled crossings will benefit from the single surface (i.e. no dropped kerbs to
negotiate).
The pavements will be much wider, particularly on the west side as this side of Exhibition
Road has a greater number of public building entrances. […]
There will be less ‘street clutter’ on the pavement areas.” (RBKC, 2009, pp. 33-34).
It can be seen from this list that many problems pointed out by the Access Audit quoted under the
story-line ‘something has to be done’ were specifically addressed by the design.
Generally, the Access Group affirmatively approved the innovative design for the Exhibition Road
which according to them “should significantly improve the existing accessibility” (RBKC, 2009, p.
67) of the street with safety measures and guides for disabled users to navigate in the street
independently and safely. Nevertheless, the group still remained worried about the safety of
pedestrians with visual impairment “[…] where the traditional kerb is to be removed and traffic and
pedestrians are on the same level as the vehicles.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 67). This shows that the Access
Group partially agreed with the interpretation of accessibility that the Council represented and which
concentrated on the broader public, but they also accepted the worries of the disability groups about
the specific problems related to the blind and partially sighted.
The reasoning of the ‘traditional road’ discourse
As stated time and again, Guide Dogs for the Blind was and is especially vocal in telling and retelling
their interpretation of the story-line, concerning the accessibility problems caused by shared spaces
and single surface schemes. They started a campaign against shared spaces in the early 2000’s, and
they have produced a report on shared spaces in 2006 where they had focus group meetings with blind
and partially sighted people to gather their views and experiences about such schemes.
Their report begins with pointing out the specific “safety issues” and their causes in the built
environment. They then move on to show how these issues lead to “reduced confidence and increased
anxiety” and finally how it results in “avoidance of shared surfaces” (Guide Dogs for the Blind, 2006,
p. 5). They also include concerns from other disabled people, however, their main focus is clearly on
the blind and partially sighted. This can be seen from the contrast in the way they express themselves:
they use very strong quotes from the focus group interviews in order to empower their arguments,
whereas they only use descriptive text in relation to people with other disabilities. The quotes clearly
show the distress that shared space cause to blind and partially sighted people:
““I had to be pulled back because I was standing in the road, thinking it was part of the kerb.”
Guide dog owner, Dundee
“Although I have some sight, I go home absolutely exhausted due to the sheer concentration and
tension.” Woman who uses a symbol cane, Dundee
46
“I keep away from this area – I stay away.” Guide dog owner, Coventry” (Guide Dogs for the
Blind, 2006, p. 5)
The inclusion of these quotes in the executive summary of the report – which arguably includes the
information judged most significant by them – implies that Guide Dogs for the Blind is trying to affect
the emotions of the readers in order to get their sympathy for the cause.
The reason for the differentiation between the visually impaired and other disability groups could be
that their focus is on blind and partially sighted people. Another point to be made is that people with
other disabilities actually might gain from shared spaces and single surface schemes, which Guide
Dogs also admits in the report, stating: “[...] wheelchair users and people with mobility impairments
appreciate level surfaces” (Guide Dogs for the Blind, 2006, p. 6).
The safety issues they list are as follows:




nearly stepping out in front of a bus;
getting knocked over by cyclists;
being intimidated by traffic passing close by; and
finding it extremely difficult to cross carriageways safely” (Guide Dogs for the Blind,
2006, p. 9)
and they attribute these issues to the following reasons:



“the lack of demarcation between ‘safe’ and ‘unsafe’ areas, with the removal of the
distinction between ‘footway’ and ‘carriageway’;
difficulty in locating and using crossing points, due to the removal of signal controlled
crossings; and
street design or the use of materials that make it hard for blind and partially-sighted
people to orientate themselves” (Guide Dogs for the Blind, 2006, p. 9).
As the conclusion of the report, they list a number of recommendations for improving the safety of
shared space and single surface schemes in order to make them more accessible and safe for blind and
partially sighted people. These are:








“the creation (or reinstatement) of a footway with a kerb, regular dropped kerbs for
wheelchair users, and properly-laid tactile paving; or
at least, a clear delineation between the ‘carriageway’/vehicle area and the ‘footway’;
pedestrian-only area, through tactile and colour/tone contrast;
tactile information to indicate when pedestrians are entering and leaving a shared
surface area;
separate pedestrian areas and cycle lanes;
controlled crossings with audible and tactile signals;
the installation of guardrails at potential danger points; and
universal consistency of design features”. (Guide Dogs for the Blind, 2006, p. 11)
Many of these recommendations as well as many of the issues raised in this report are often reiterated
by Guide Dogs and other disability groups, which creates a sense of fighting for the same cause as
well as strengthens and spreads this story-line. The most important ones are highlighted in the quote.
The mention of a “footway with a kerb” and “guardrails at potential danger points” refers to traditional
safety measures in road design.
47
This interpretation of the accessibility story-line, concentrating on the problems of accessibility and
safety of shared spaces and single surface schemes, including the specific issues, their causes and the
recommendations for improvements is retold by Guide Dogs for the Blind and many other actors
throughout the planning process of Exhibition Road.
Some of the main points of the argument, those which most frequently reappear are the need for a
‘safe’, pedestrian-only zone, with a kerb or other delineation between this zone and the carriageway or
shared surface; and the consistency of design features.
The position that a tactile delineator could potentially replace kerbs and thus enable the safe
implementation of single surface schemes is shared by disability groups, as reflected in the following
quotes:
“[…] until there is an acceptable alternative delineator, we would urge the retention of kerbed
footways with dropped kerbs [...]” (RBKC, 2009, p. 95);
“The Access Group’s recommendations are to retain the kerbs, unless an alternative delineator
is proven to be effective; […]” (RBKC, 2009, p. 76).
The second quote is from a letter from the National Association of Disabled Supporters. It is important
to point out that disability groups only agree to the use of the tactile delineator under the condition that
‘there is an acceptable alternative delineator’ that is ‘proven to be effective’. This opinion is also
shared by the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RBKC, 2009) and the Access Group of the
project.
Providing accessibility as a legal obligation
As mentioned earlier, accessibility was important for the project because it was necessary for funding
as well as a legal obligation. This led to the question whether the Council lived up to its legal
responsibilities by attempting to implement a kind of shared space. The Department for Transport
describes this obligation in their Manual for Streets from 2007:
“Highway Authorities must comply with the Disability Equality Duty under the Disability
Discrimination Act [DDA] 2005. There is a general duty for public authorities to promote
equality under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. There is also a specific obligation for
those who design, manage and maintain buildings and public spaces to ensure that disabled
people play a full part in benefiting from, and shaping, an inclusive built environment. Street
design should be inclusive which means providing for all people regardless of age or ability”
(RBKC, 2009, p. 83)
As part of their critique, DPTAC specifically refers to the Disability Discrimination Act in their
statement on shared surfaces, highlighting the importance of the Disability Equality Duty of the
Council:
“Our impression [...] is that views of disabled people are not being given sufficient weight and
that by implementing some types of shared surfaces, local authorities are restricting the safe
independent mobility of many disabled people. This could mean that the local authorities
involved are not fulfilling their Disability Equality Duty.”(RBKC, 2009, p. 95)
48
The Council addresses this specific concern many times in the Cabinet meeting minutes as well as by
creating an Equality Impact Assessment, which goes into detail about whether or not the Council have
fulfilled their duty under the DDA about providing equal opportunities for all users.
However, direct reference to the claims that the council is not living up to the legal obligations is
missing from the council’s communication, even though there are many indirect references to it. The
indirect references show that the council is trying to prove that they are living up to these obligations,
however, a direct reference to it in their communication would draw attention to the possibility that
they are not, thus might damage their credibility, which is a possible reason for avoiding it.
Kerb-free scheme with alternative delineation
Additionally the Council, in what can be seen as a reaction to the concerns raised by the disability
groups, highlights the importance of creating delineation on “the edge between the pedestrian and
vehicle zones” (RBKC, 2009, p. 100). From our interview, we concluded that this idea was included in
the design because of the concerns on single surface scheme made by the disability groups. The
Council also stated that not only the delineation but also the new layout of the street “will help
[disabled people] navigate the area, together with the provision of guidance and warning tactile
paving” (RBKC, 2009, p. 105). Special focus was put on accessibility and safety measures for blind,
partially sighted people and wheelchair users:
“The new accessibility features to assist visually impaired people are to include tactile blister
paving to indicate the location of controlled pedestrian crossings and corduroy tactile paving to
act as a hazard warning located where the traditional kerb is normally located. The single
surface will allow wheelchair users to cross at any point along the newly paved Exhibition
Road.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 88).
With the wording highlighted in the quote above, the Council brings up the “benefits of a kerb free
scheme” (RBKC, 2009, p. 34). This is an important point, because it is precisely this area that is most
contested in the story-line, as disability groups, especially Guide Dogs strongly disagreed with the
removal of kerbs as safety measures. The Council was willing to include tactile delineation between
the different functions on the road, however, they were definitely dedicated to the idea of the single
surface (in David Bonnett’s words: “the project was committed to a single surface as an idea”
(Appendix B, 36:52)). To support their case about the kerb free scheme, they use arguments about
kerbs causing problems for many different groups, which were made by various organizations to
support their case:
“The Association of Wheelchair Children says: “For a wheelchair-using child, a major hurdle to
becoming fully mobile outdoors is ascending and descending a 4" kerb.”
The Disabled Living Foundation states that “Unless you are a fit and active wheelchair user,
going up and down kerbs is difficult and often needs the help of an assistant.”
Addenbrooke’s Rehabilitation Clinic’s advice to new wheelchair users is that “It is best to avoid
kerbs whenever possible.”” (RBKC, 2009, p. 34).
The use of these quotes implies that they want to show that the new design should be accessible for the
majority of users. Specifically, the use of quotes can be seen as a reaction to the use of quotes from
blind and partially sighted people by Guide Dogs in their campaign against shared spaces.
49
The question of the tactile delineator
As mentioned earlier, the disability groups had a definite condition for the use of tactile delineation as
a replacement of the kerbs: their effectiveness had to be proven. This condition meant a need for
testing different tactile surfaces to find out whether they are effective or not. Guide Dogs initiated a
research about the efficiency of possible delineators that Transport for London later took over. At the
time of the final decision about the detailed design, the research was in progress, but, according to Mr.
Mount, it was not moving at the pace required by the deadline of the project (Appendix A). Members
of the Exhibition Road Team managed to speed the process up by asking for the inclusion of the
corduroy tactile in the testing, which has the message: “hazard ahead, proceed with caution”
(Appendix B, 38:19).
The minutes of the Cabinet meeting also refers to this process, and how it was influenced by the
Exhibition Road Team: “At the Royal Borough’s request, these tests will include the corduroy tactile
[...]. Officers believe that the forthcoming tests will show that the ‘corduroy’ tactile is an effective
delineator [...]” (RBKC, 2009, p. 35). The highlighted wording accentuates the influence the
Exhibition Road Team had on the testing process. The tests showed that the corduroy tactile was the
best out of the ones they tried but the report about the research still warned against using it before
further tests are completed. This was due to certain issues that could render the tactile inefficient, such
as problems during the construction which would lead to an uneven surface, or dirt settling into the
corduroy pattern.
Bill Mount argued that this would not cause problems in the case of Exhibition Road, because they
would take care that it is laid properly and that “in Kensington and Chelsea [they] certainly will wash
the streets” (Appendix B, 48:20).
However, the reasoning of Mr. Mount could not be proven before the implementation of the scheme.
Additionally, according to Mr. Mount, Guide Dogs used the report to their advantage, revealing it to
the public and arguing that it states that the corduroy tactile pavement is not safe. In the end, though,
the Exhibition Road team managed to get their solution accepted: the road would be built in stages and
this would allow for “site testing” of the corduroy during the construction: “[…] the first section of
Exhibition Road was laid, we put in the corduroy, and [...] there was site testing of it. And it came out
fine. It performed well, and so we’d proceeded with that [...]” (Appendix B, 48:54).
As a reaction to the idea of the delineator replacing the kerb, even though in their report in 2006 they
accept this possibility (Guide Dogs for the Blind, 2006), in later communication they express the
specific importance of a kerb for guide dog users, since
“[...] their dogs are trained to recognise kerbs, but not tactiles. […]. Guide dogs would not
recognise the tactile but their users might. As a team they would not know what to do.” (RBKC,
2009, p. 41; rudi.net, n.d.).
This argument shows how deeply the ‘traditional road’ discourse is rooted in the thoughts of Guide
Dogs, since it refers to the way the dogs are trained and does not even bring up the possibility of
training the dogs in a different way.
The response to this argument from the Council is similarly strong, as they write:
“Common sense suggests, however, that as this point, if confused, the guide dog users would
stop and ask for help” (RBKC, 2009, p. 41; rudi.net, n.d.),
50
which can be seen as an attempt to discredit the logic of the argument above, as well as creating a
negative narrative in relation to Guide Dogs in general, since it suggests that they lack ‘common
sense’.
Reference to the importance of kerbs in the ‘traditional road’, also appears in communications from
disability groups other than Guide Dogs. Specifically DPTAC in their statement about shared spaces
points out the importance of kerbs in teaching children how to navigate the streets:
“Kerbs promote road safety - the rules in the Highway Code for crossing the road begin “Stop
just before you get to the kerb, where you can see if anything is coming. Do not get too close to
the traffic.” This is fundamental to the Green Cross Code taught to children.” (RBKC, 2009, p
72).
With this statement they extend the relevance of story-line to not only disabled people in general but
basically the whole of the society instead of limiting it solely to visually impaired people. They
reiterate the way roads have ‘always’ been used and imply that this is indeed the only way roads can
be used. An important difference is, however, that in their statement DPTAC accepts the possibility of
the use of a tactile delineator, they merely point out their reasons for taking the side of the use of a
kerb. (RBKC, 2009)
Apart from the apparent aim to discredit the arguments of Guide Dogs, there are further reactions to
the critique of the scheme from the Council’s side. The Executive Director for Planning and Borough
Development admitted that there was an issue with navigation for guide dogs who navigate in the
streets by using kerbs and that they “would require training to recognise the tactile strip as the
delineator” (RBKC, 2009, p. 3). He adds, though, that the new design features “[…] do not make it
impossible or unreasonably difficult for guide dog users […]” (rudi.net, n.d.). Additionally, “on
balance” he points out that the new design would help for the vast majority of disabled people:
partially sighted, wheelchair users, persons with mobility issues:
“[…] the scheme would deliver an improved visitor experience for the partially sighted - who
would be able to navigate their way using the cast iron gulley cover; pushchair and wheelchair
users - who would benefit from step free access; and those with mobility issues - who would be
able to move around more freely” (RBKC, 2009, p. 3).
The Council also points out that the concerns of the Guide dogs on single surface being not accessible
and unsafe are not completely relevant to all vision impaired people, which can be seen as an attempt
to limit the validity of their statements:
“For the partially sighted without guide dogs the tactile would warn them of a hazard and some
of them would also be able to see the black painted gulley cover” (RBKC, 2009, p. 41).
Another argument against the complaints of Guide Dogs and disability groups representing people
with vision impairment appears from David Bonnett in our interview. He refers to a study showing
that blind people navigate with help of their memory, and “it’s not the kerb, it’s actually the face of
the building that provides the greatest reassurance of where they are” (Appendix B, 37:24). He uses
this as part of the justification for the removal of the kerb, saying:
“I’m confident in saying that was reasonable, it’s because research by Royal College of Art has
demonstrated that building frontage was the key factor in guiding blind people, and we added to
that by saying we would introduce [...] a safe zone.” (Appendix B, 49:44).
51
The conflict between the Council and the disability groups in relation to the specific features of the
detailed design and their impact on the accessibility of the road put the Access Group and their
representatives in an uneasy position. This is shown in the proceedings of the final Access Group
meeting before the decision about the detailed design, which is attached to the minutes of the Cabinet
meeting. Here the conflict between members of the Access Group and the Access Champion of the
Council is openly acknowledged: “It was noted that the Council’s Access Champion views on shared
space and single space street differs greatly from the Access Group’s views.” (RBKC, 2009, p 70).
Additionally, Guide Dogs expressed a strong disagreement to the scheme shortly before the final
decision about the detailed design was made, writing to the Council:
“I would once again urge you to reconsider the use of a shared surface to achieve the design
aims of Exhibition Road which, without doubt, discriminate against all disabled
people.”(RBKC, 2009, p. 72).
In this quote the wording “without a doubt” shows the extent of their belief that the scheme will not be
accessible. Also, they again attempt to involve a larger group than the blind and partially sighted when
writing it will “discriminate against all disabled people”. However, they do not support their strongly
expressed claim with any arguments, since the accessibility issues they refer to are related to people
with vision impairment. The letter that includes the quote is dated 15 July 2009, which shows that they
did not think that their concerns have been heard and addressed before the final decision on the 23rd of
July.
This is further confirmed by another letter from Guide Dogs included in the Annexes of the minutes
from the July 2009 Cabinet meeting, where they write:
“we find our major concern about the single shared surface proposed for this scheme has been
ignored. [...] it is clear that you intend to proceed with development that, we believe, will actively
discriminate against blind and partially sighted people as well as presenting risks to other
groups of disabled people, elderly people, and young children.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 92)
The highlighted wording in the quote also shows the attempt to include further groups in favour of
their argument.
In the end, the story-line about ‘accessibility’ led to changes in the detailed design compared to the
concept. Additionally, the conflicts created by the contested nature of the story-line led to the
emergence of and influenced further story-lines in the process, which will be discussed later on.
In more detail, according to our analysis, this story had the following effect on the process:
 the Council’s view that the new scheme would improve the accessibility of the street was very
powerful. It was one of the main initiators that led to the implementation of a – to some extent
– shared space scheme;
 indeed, it was perceived as the main goal of the project to improve accessibility;
 however, the opposing representation of the story-line from the side of disability groups and
the way it was told was effective enough to result in the inclusion of the concerns of the
visually impaired in the discussion about shared space and the design of Exhibition Road, as
emphasized many times by the council (RBKC, 2009). This specific strand of thought will
also be revisited under the story-line “consensus”;
 it had led to the inclusion of a tactile delineation between the safe zone and areas where
vehicles are allowed, as detailed in the description about the case (Chapter 4.1; RBKC, 2009);
52


at this point, though, Guide Dogs for the Blind still did not feel that their concerns were heard
and that the tactile delineator was proven to be effective enough to use in the scheme, and as a
result they did not fully accept the scheme. This has led to further conflicts and the threat of a
lawsuit, which again will be discussed under the story-line “consensus”;
this continuing disagreement has also led to the emergence of another argument from the
Council’s side, which will be discussed under the “proportionality argument”.
Pedestrian priority
This story-line emphasizes the positive changes shared space grants for pedestrians in the public
realm.
This story-line is mainly articulated by members of the Council and the Exhibition Road Team, as
well as Cllr. Moylan. We have not discovered any contra-arguments.
References to the priority of pedestrians the new design of Exhibition Road and shared space in
general grants can be found in many sources, in the Cabinet meeting minutes (RBKC, 2009) as well as
in online articles. There are also videos of Cllr. Moylan where the story-line is articulated, and it
appears in our interview with Bill Mount.
Cllr. Moylan argues for the benefits for pedestrians in shared space schemes or in cases of
decluttering: “it makes the pedestrians’ crossing experience so much easier without actually doing
anything very bad to the cars” (YouTube 2B, 7:07). Additionally, he compares it to general
pedestrianization of streets, where they have experienced “the grace of dead space” (YouTube 2B,
3:45) in the United Kingdom, and implies that shared spaces, do not have the same downside.
Bill Mount states in our interview that the most important thing for him about implementing a shared
space scheme on Exhibition Road was that it would improve the pedestrian realm. He explains that he
“was happy for the drivers to be a little uncertain, but [he] definitely wanted the pedestrians to be very
clear about where it was safe and then where they needed to watch out for traffic.” (Appendix B,
36:02). This shows the difference in the treatment vehicular and pedestrian traffic got when designing
the scheme. It could also be part of the explanation as to why the single surface scheme eventually was
implemented instead of a completely shared space, although there have been other factors influencing
this, such as the considerations for the accessibility for vision impaired people.
Kensington High Street has already been mentioned in relation to the Exhibition Road project in the
case description as well as when introducing the ‘shared space’ discourse and Cllr. Moylan. A blog on
the website of the British newspaper The Guardian explains that at Kensington High Street, which is a
more timid kind of shared space even compared to Exhibition Road, “pedestrians were encouraged to
cross where they chose” (The Guardian, 2008). It adds that “pedestrians and wheelchair users are no
longer dragooned behind railings” (The Guardian, 2008), which extends the argument to disabled
people.
Similar to Kensington High Street, the Council did not want to implement a completely pedestrianized
scheme at Exhibition Road. The aim was to “create a better balance between the needs of pedestrians
and motorists” (RBKC, 2009, p. 120). This was done by removing, or making the defined “tracks”
less obvious for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, thus making sure that “drivers will drive more
cautiously […] and with greater awareness […] for pedestrians.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 120).
53
Articles about the scheme have also emphasized this aspect of Exhibition Road, showing that the
argument has been successfully spread and proven by the implemented design.
The two story-lines “accessibility” and “pedestrian priority” concerned the main goals of the Council
with the new design of Exhibition Road. This was summed up by Bill Mount in our interview: “[…]
we wanted to make it very accessible, we wanted […] to raise the status of the pedestrians, and so we
were obviously looking to quite a radical solution.” (Appendix B, 15:55). This quote also shows that
the Exhibition Road Team was aware of the radical nature of the new design, which was also made
clear by David Bonnett during our interview (Appendix A). In the following sections we will discuss
some of the main counter-arguments against the implementation of a shared space scheme, which were
to some extent related to this radical nature of the scheme.
Good, but not here
Here, again, is a story-line that to some degree was contested in the process. For the most part, this
story-line accepts the point that shared space schemes are good and can work in beneficial way by
improving safety, reducing accidents and ensuring equity for all road users. However, many of the
actors argue that a completely shared space cannot operate successfully in such a busy street as
Exhibition Road, which is one of the main streets in the city centre of London.
As a result, there are two different groups of actors spreading this story line. The argument for the
general applicability of shared spaces is accentuated by Cllr. Moylan, while the counter-argument is
mainly spread by the Council of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Action Disability
Kensington and Chelsea Access Group (ADKC Access Group).
In Daniel Moylan’s point of view, “the principles underlying the shared space concept are actually
pretty universal and of fairly widespread applicability”. (YouTube 1, 2:25) He argues that it has “[…]
to do with respect for other people and acknowledging their rights and their autonomy, their
responsibility to make sensible decisions for themselves and in relation to others” (YouTube 1, 2:39).
He adds that “[…] in urban environments, and even in suburban environments the principle idea, the
idea that negotiation with other road users is a safe and responsible and adult way forward […]”
(YouTube, 3:45).
In this quote, he argues that shared spaces can be applied in various environments, although he goes
on to acknowledge that there are certain roads, such as highways, where vehicle traffic has absolute
priority and shared spaces are not a relevant possibility.
Much of his wording in his arguments for shared space in the above quoted interview seems very
reasonable, logical at first sight, but at the same time it tries to affect people’s feelings, specifically
using the word “respect” and referring to people’s “rights and their autonomy”, and then stating
bluntly that it is an “adult way forward”. It is in some ways a very political argument: it refers to the
logic behind the scheme but it does so in an emotionally effective way, since who would want to act in
a way that is not respectful, not adult?
The Council uses Manual for Streets to support their argument in this story-line. They state that having
a complete shared space scheme is not suitable for Exhibition Road. One of the reasons is that shared
space or single surface schemes “work best in relatively calm traffic environments” (RBKC, 2009, p.
82), in places where traffic volume is not significantly high.
54
The Council also points out concerns about accessibility and safety for disabled people in completely
shared spaces. They emphasize some preconditions for shared space schemes that are necessary for
these schemes to work well for handicapped people and it can be seen that Exhibition Road does not
indicate all those features. The main discrepancy is traffic volume as it is mentioned above. This is
supported by further statements:
“Subject to making suitable provision for disabled people, shared surface streets are likely to
work well:
• in short lengths, or where they form cul-de-sacs
• where the volume of motor traffic is below 100 vehicles per hour (vph) (peak)”
(RBKC, 2009, p. 83).
It can be easily seen that if the abovementioned conditions needed to be fulfilled, Exhibition Road was
not a place where a shared space scheme would be expected to work well. The traffic volume reached
“1,100 vehicles per hour during peak periods” (RBKC, 2009, p. 120) before the implementation of the
new design and limiting it was not a goal of the Council. It is also far from being “short”: the whole
length of the street measures about 800 metres (RBKC, 2009).
This discrepancy was probably part of the reasons for limiting the shared space nature of the detailed
design of Exhibition Road from the beginning of the planning process, by providing separate zones for
the different uses of the road.
The ADKC Access Group also express their opinion that Exhibition Road cannot have a fully
complete shared space scheme. They clearly show their position against complete shared surface
schemes in London. For this they use the argument that London as the metropolitan area where
millions of tourists visit each year is too big to have safe shared spaces. In their opinion a shared space
scheme in London can create a great risk: “The group also felt it was not practical for a city such as
London that attracts millions of visitors from all around the world to have such an area [shared space]
of high risk.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 97). From their perspective single surfaces could be implemented in
places where traffic is controlled or in calm areas with light traffic volume (RBKC, 2009), which
reiterates the arguments of RBKC.
As pointed out above, according to our analysis this story-line plays a very important role in
influencing the detailed design of Exhibition Road. Cllr. Moylan pressures for the implementation of a
shared space scheme, as he believes in its general applicability. In the meanwhile, the Council argues
that they do not want to implement a “pure” shared space scheme. At the same time, an argument
against any kind of shared space in London is also present from the side of ADKC.
The reply from the Exhibition Road Team is, however, not to discard the idea of shared spaces
completely. Instead they look for a solution that has the benefits of shared spaces, such as an improved
pedestrian realm while retaining vehicular traffic and certain design elements – such as the single
surface with the criss-cross pattern which they consider as “a fundamental element of the proposals
for Exhibition Road” (RBKC, 2009, p. 103) –, but can be implemented in such a central area as
Exhibition Road. The use of the wording “fundamental element” implies that it is so important that it
cannot be changed.
55
People are not ready for this
Shared space as the design for Exhibition Road is new for the area in its concept, in the way of use, in
its layout and details. This leads to the next story-line, which states that people are to some extent
unprepared for this radical change in the street design. The story-line can be related to the previous
one, which is based on the statement that shared space schemes are good but not suitable for such a
huge city as London.
This story-line is mainly told by David Bonnett and the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea. It is also highlighted in online articles that were published after the implementation of the
new design of Exhibition Road. It is emphasized in our interview with David Bonnett and Bill Mount
as well.
The story-line appears in May 2009 in the summary and response to the Exhibition Road – Stage 2
Safety Audit, (RBKC, 2009) by RBKC. They were aware that people are not ready for a big change
like this and that this sudden transformation cannot happen so easily. This is the reason why they
wanted to implement the shared space scheme in Exhibition Road step by step, with the help of certain
measures aimed at helping people to adapt and navigate in the newly designed street:
“It should be noted that the proposals for Exhibition Road will have to be constructed in phases.
[...] This will introduce traffic management measures, temporary signing and guidance where
appropriate to establish the new scheme in a safe manner.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 105).
In the same month, David Bonnett in his letter about the access improvements to the lead officer of the
project outlined that there is a need to be careful with shared space and single surface concepts
regarding the fact that this design is novel and unknown for people (RBKC, 2009). He also showed his
concern that this innovative design might not be understood and accepted because there were not any
National Standards for shared spaces schemes at the time in the United Kingdom: “[…] there is as yet
no agreed National Standards concerning shared spaces on this scale.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 115), which
refers to the lack of regulations and the novel nature of these schemes.
After the implementation, it was clearly visible that it is not so easy to change people’s mind-set and
their perception of the road. They have been used to traditional roads all of their lives, and it is
especially difficult to change the attitude of drivers in regard to pedestrians. This is reflected in some
online articles and blog entries, where the shared space concept and pedestrian priority is referred to as
a tremendous change that people cannot adapt to without road signs helping them understand the way
they work. In these articles, the importance of giving enough time for people to adapt is also pointed
out.
When Exhibition Road was opened it caused a confusion for drivers. Some of them could not
understand if the road was working as one-way or two-ways: “When opened in November, the lack of
road markings caused some drivers to behave as if the road was one-way.” (thisbigcity.net, 2012). For
this reason, some signage was placed in the area of Exhibition Road to inform road users “that traffic
was still bidirectional” (thisbigcity.net, 2012). The extent of the confusion about road use is also
pointed out: “The signs aren’t just for road users. Even pedestrians are reminded how to cross the
road” (thisbigcity.net, 2012).
56
Image 4.4: Temporary signs in Exhibition Road (http://i1.wp.com/thisbigcity.net/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/IMG_1268.jpg)
This confusion and the temporary use of signs and bollards in order to clarify the way the road should
be used was also referred to by Bill Mount in our interview (Appendix A). This shows that the
Exhibition Road Team was aware of the issue and were prepared to implement temporary signage in
order to provide the time needed for road users to adapt to the scheme. However, it should be noted
that these road signs are now removed.
Nevertheless, the argument appears in the blog entry that “pedestrian priority may never become
second nature for London’s road users […]” (thisbigcity.net, 2012). The abovementioned signs that
were put on the street clearly shows that people were not ready for such a sudden and radical change
not only in road design but also in their mind-sets and refers to the dominant nature of the ‘traditional
road’ discourse. This is also clearly highlighted in the end of the article where the author leaves some
rhetorical questions about the future:
“Will London’s road users ever give way to pedestrians? Will automobiles actually drive more
slowly along Exhibition Road as a result of this new design? Will the road become safer for
cyclists and pedestrians?” (thisbigcity.net, 2012).
This concern about the difficulties of adapting to pedestrian priority and shared spaces is also
mentioned in our interview with David Bonnett, where he explains that “the traffic’s still too active”
(Appendix B, 1:04:40) and expresses his view that traffic calming in the form of speed-bumps or
video surveillance could be beneficial for Exhibition Road. This again can be related to the need of
57
adaptation, and the need for different measures to help this adaptation process along. It also refers to
elements traditionally associated o more traditional roads.
The awareness of the need for gradual change is also detectable in Cllr. Moylan’s communication: “I
think progress step by step is where we’re aiming.” (YouTube 1, 4:10). This is especially significant
since it comes from the main supporter of the concept of the ‘shared space’ discourse in the process.
This story-line is also outlined in other articles where again it is pointed out that British people do not
completely comprehend the concept of shared space schemes, which can be seen as “naked streets”. It
is clearly highlighted that people are “stuck” in the traditional perception of streets where each road
user has its own space for moving which is surrounded by physical barriers. As Simon Jenkins puts it:
“Shared space, or "naked streets", is a concept still little understood by a British public steeped in the
old religion of urban traffic.” (London Evening Standard, 2012).
Another article argues that it is too sudden to have shared spaces in Britain because there is a lack of
knowledge and legislations for shares spaces implementation: “The current lack of clear advice from
the DfT [Department of Transport] and the outdated guidance and legislation is a hindrance to the
implementation of shared surface schemes.” (rudi.net, n.d.). This is also emphasized by David
Bonnett, as has been referred to above. During the planning process of Exhibition Road, the
Department of Transport did not have any regulations in their Manual for Streets for innovative
concept like this, and this lack of regulation was used as a means to gain power by disability groups in
their campaign against shared spaces. Guide Dogs points out the lack of research about the safety of
shared spaces and actually have the support of DfT in this. (RBKC, 2009, p. 74)
There are other arguments that relate to this lack of regulation, research, and proof about shared spaces
throughout the process. The quote above connects these deficiencies with this story-line about, which
means that the arguments about the lack of research, regulation and proof are supporting this storyline. Another important reference appears in a letter attached to the minutes of the Cabinet meeting. In
this the Department for Transport states that they are “not aware of any specific piece of research
comparing shared surfaces and conventional forms of traffic calming”, and that any claims regarding
the benefits of shared spaces are “based on anecdotal evidence” (RBKC, 2009, p. 74). The letter also
refers to the research that they are carrying out as a result of this “lack of identified research” (RBKC,
2009, p. 74). The wording “anecdotal evidence”, referring to the proof about the effectiveness of
shared spaces has a strong negative tone to it.
Part of the influence this story-line had on the process was already partially pointed out: it initiated the
inclusion of temporary signing. Another important influence that has relevance even outside our case
was that it initiated research and the creation of regulations about shared spaces in the United
Kingdom. The research mentioned under ‘accessibility’ to determine possible tactile delineators that
could replace kerbs in such schemes is one of the consequences. Following the case, a Local Transport
Note 1/11 about shared space was also created by DfT in 2011, which means that regulations about
shared spaces started to appear.
The connection to the lack of regulations, etc. emphasizes another quite significant influence the storyline had on the process: it made the implementation of a shared space scheme difficult to begin with,
which was possibly part of the reason that the Exhibition Road Team needed to reach agreement with
as many actors as possible. This effort from the side of the Exhibition Road Team and the Council
meant that they were looking for a solution that was radical enough to reach the goals about
58
‘accessibility’ and ‘pedestrian priority’ but not so radical that it would lead to strong resistance. It
probably played a role in initiating the ‘single surface’ idea instead of a complete shared space, which
can be interpreted as part of a bigger “step-by-step approach” towards the overall acceptance of shared
spaces. This work towards reaching an agreement leads us to the next two story-lines about
‘consensus’ and ‘the proportionality argument’.
Consensus Building
This story-line serves to emphasize the work done by the Exhibition Road Team in order to ensure that
everyone’s point of view is considered. It is built on listing and reiterating the different groups
(disability groups, visitors, residents etc.) involved in the planning process and on emphasizing that
the disability groups’ concerns and ideas were considered in creating the final design.
The story-line is spread in different publications made by the Exhibition Road Team and other actors
in the planning process, as well as in certain online articles. Members of the project team and
sympathisers share it, but it is strongly contested by other actors. Disability groups strongly express
that the Council is discrediting their views in the process, and especially Guide Dogs is very vocal
about this. They are also joined by other organizations in trying to make their voice heard in relation to
some issues: specifically the ever-present concern of blind and partially sighted people in relation to
shared space and single surface schemes.
Again, many of the supporting quotes for this story-line appear in the minutes of the July 2009 Cabinet
meeting. In Annex 4 – a “General briefing note on shared space” (RBKC, 2009, p. 85) – they discuss
that the Department for Transport (DfT) has started a research project in order to inform “future policy
and guidance”, since these were lacking at the time of the creation of the detailed design (RBKC,
2009, p. 86). One of the expectations in relation to this research was to “Propose design solutions and
other measures aimed at making shared space work for all users.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 86). The
reference to ‘all users’ implies that the Exhibition Road Team believes it is possible to satisfy all users
of the road in shared space schemes, and it also expresses that they are considering all users in relation
to this. Additionally, there are direct references to Guide Dogs in the description of the research:
“Guide Dogs will be actively involved throughout this project. We will be inviting contributions
from them and other user groups. We will also be consulting practitioners for their views.”
(RBKC, 2009, p. 86).
Two things are important to point out in relation to these two quotes. The wording “actively involved”
and the multiple mentions of Guide Dogs can definitely be seen as addressing the conflict with them
and trying to reinforce the position of the Exhibition Road Team (who work together with DfT) as
working on including Guide Dogs in the process and listening to what they have to say. The other
important thing actually extends upon this latter goal by listing other groups involved in the process,
such as user groups and consulting practitioners. This means including a broad range of people from
non-professionals, who only use the road, to professionals.
This statement of broad cooperation reappears in many of the other Annexes in relation to safety and
accessibility issues of Exhibition Road, such as in Annex 9 - the Council’s response to the Stage 2
Safety Audit –, in Annex 10 – the Access Consultant’s letter to the Cabinet – and Annex 11 – the
Equality Impact Assessment (RBKC, 2009). It is also present in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting
itself. There are references to modifications in the detailed design proposal as a result of the report of
the Access Group and complaints from Guide Dogs, to “consultations” – though without clarifying
59
what these mean (RBKC, 2009). The Cabinet, however, also reinforces their position that they are not
willing to entirely sacrifice the basic ideas behind the design as discussed above under “accessibility”.
What is more, project lead officer Bill Mount and David Bonnett in interview referred to a research
that the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment together with the Royal College of
Art made about the way blind people use spaces. One of their conclusions was that “blind people were
confused about the number of tactiles” (Appendix B, 40:50) used for different purposes, even though
their function was to help blind people navigate. It was “agreed with Guide Dogs and Transport for
London” (Appendix B, 44:26) to execute a research of tactiles to see which tactile would be efficient
to use instead of a kerb. As David Bonnett added the aim of this was to find “an agreement about the
type of tactile that would satisfy most if not all parties” (Appendix B, 45:48). The research was started
by Guide Dogs, but later Transport for London continued to fund it. This again clearly shows that the
project team tried to meet all parties’ needs and facilitate an inclusive process.
The story-line is also reiterated in the article on RUDI.net about the final decision on the detailed
design, emphasizing the willingness of the Cabinet to “modify the plans” (rudi.net, n.d.) in response to
the concerns raised by Guide Dogs.
As can be seen, many of the statements that carry this story-line also refer to Guide Dogs. The fact that
the reiteration of the consensus building work and Guide Dogs appear together in these statements
shows that they are strongly related. It expresses the depth of the conflict between the Exhibition Road
Project Team and Guide Dogs for the Blind, by linking them to the need for reassurance about
involving everyone’s concern in the decisions. The conflict arrived to a peak when Guide Dogs tried
to find a legal solution to halt the implementation of the single surface scheme at Exhibition Road.
They did not succeed, but the attempt has led to an open letter from the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea to Guide Dogs (RBKC, 2010). In the letter the Borough expressed the hope and desire to
work together with Guide Dogs on the Exhibition Road Project and emphasized that Guide Dogs have
been a part of the Access Group since 2004. They also state their belief that the two parties are
“pursuing a similar goal: ensuring that Exhibition Road is the most accessible cultural destination in
the world” (RBKC, 2010). The wording ‘pursuing a similar goal’ serves to put the Council and Guide
Dogs in the same team in the mind of the reader, be that the public or Guide Dogs representatives.
Making this letter public was important to the Borough as the Guide Dog campaign was also public
and was aimed at showing that the Borough was not listening to the concerns raised about the
accessibility of the new design of Exhibition Road.
This last point can be seen as the main goal behind spreading this story-line: the Exhibition Road
Team’s effort to reinforce their position as consensus-seekers, who consider every opinion and try to
“strike a balance” (RBKC, 2009, p. 52) between them.
However, the story-line was not entirely successful, especially not by the time the final decision was to
be made. The Exhibition Road Team needed to use different measures to ensure that their goal –
pursuing the ‘single surface’ design – can be reached. This is why another story-line emerges in the
minutes of the Cabinet meeting in July 2009, where the detailed design was accepted.
The proportionality argument
This story-line is the final argument in favour of the implementation of the single surface scheme on
Exhibition Road. The essence of it is that the majority of the visitors of Exhibition Road will benefit of
60
the scheme, as it will improve the aesthetics of the area as well as make it easier to move around
because of the lack of kerbs.
The story-line is mainly presented by the Council and those behind the planning and decision-making
in the project. It is especially present in the minutes from the Cabinet’s meeting in July 2009, where
the final decision in relation to the detailed design of the road was made.
Reference to the story-line appears twice already in the very beginning of the document. First they
simply state that the new, single surface scheme “would be beneficial to the vast majority of disabled
visitors.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 2). The wording “vast majority” strongly emphasizes the proportion of
people they talk about by the use of the adjective “vast”, which is used in the sense that it is
“overwhelming”. It also, passively implies that the concerns in relation to the scheme only affect a
very small portion of society, a very small portion of the disabled visitors of Exhibition Road.
In the second case, they point to the most important aspect of this story-line, referring to the conflict
between the concerns of disability groups (mainly represented by Guide Dogs for the Blind) and the
majority of visitors of the area and implying the importance of satisfying the interest of the majority:
“The Council recognised that a kerb-free street was an area of concern to the Guide Dogs for the
Blind Association, but that a very large number of people would benefit from the environmental
and accessibility improvements brought about by the scheme.” (RBKC, 2009, p. 4).
Again, there is a reference to the number of people who will benefit from the single surface scheme,
although the wording ‘very large’ is less persuasive than the previous use of the word ‘vast’.
The Second Stage Safety Audit, which is attached to the minutes as Annex 9, points out the issues that
the single surface is likely to present to those with vision impairment. In their reply the council agrees
that this is an issue and it should be considered, but they also state that “[…] surveys have shown that
very few blind and partially sighted people (using white sticks or guide dogs) use Exhibition Road
preferring instead the pedestrian tunnel […]” (RBKC, 2009, p . 103). Here again by referring to the
number of visually impaired users of Exhibition Road with the words ‘very few’ the Council is clearly
trying to draw attention to the minority nature of these issues.
The same argument appears in Annex 11, in the Equality Impact Assessment. Here it is pointed out
that:
“[…] it has to be recalled that there are fewer than 5,000 guide dog users in the UK. This
sounds like a lot but has to be compared to the 11.5 million visitors a year to the institutions in
the Exhibition Road area, who will benefit from these street improvements.” (RBKC, 2009, p.
130)
Here the comparison between the volume of visitors and guide dog users that was already discussed is
much clearer, as they provide numbers in order to support their point. The proportional difference is
all the more strong since it quotes the total number of guide dog users in the UK, which implies that
the number of visitors with guide dogs to the street would be even lower than that. However, the
numbers are from different statistics, which makes actual comparison impossible. The choice of
numbers seen in this light implies that they are using them purposefully as rhetoric tools instead of
presenting actual statistical comparison. At first read, the sentence gives the impression of using hard
data to underline their point, but on further enquiry this proves not to be entirely true.
61
The statement above, using the numbers, is also quoted in an online article about the final decision
about the detailed design that appears on RUDI.net, which shows the attempt to spread the story-line
and gain additional support (rudi.net, u.d).
Access consultant David Bonnett also outlined that the new design of Exhibition Road benefit the
majority of society in our interview:
“[…] blind or partially sighted people are quite few in number, whereas the number of
wheelchair users, children with buggies, people like me on sticks are substantial. So there was a
proportionality argument that came into play.” (Appendix B, 52:27).
In this statement Mr. Bonnett uses both the words “quite few” to refer to the number of blind and
partially sighted people and contrasts it with the word “substantial” when talking about the number of
people with other disabilities. It clearly expresses the contrast in the perceived importance of the two
sides: saying “quite” few creates a specific emphasis on how little this number is, while “substantial”
refers to an important portion. He then goes on to explain that this led to a “proportionality argument”
when it came to the decision about the detailed design of Exhibition Road. These wordings, as the
whole ‘proportionality argument’ story-line is implying that the concerns of people with visual
impairments are not as important as the needs of other people who form the majority of the society.
However, the disability groups were not satisfied with this reasoning, as can be seen in a letter from
Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) also attached to the Cabinet meeting minutes. Here
they emphasize that while they understand the need to improve the area for all users, they also “[…]
feel strongly that this development must take in a way which enables everyone [...] to feel confident
using the space and be safe [...].” (RBKC, 2009, p. 78). This counter-argument indeed points to the
possible weak point to the Council’s story-line, namely that it does not take ‘everyone’ into account.
In relation to this weakness it is also important to point out the inherent conflict between the story-line
about “consensus” and the proportionality argument. It is clear in the “consensus” story-line that the
Council is communicating that they involve all parties and are looking for the solution that is
beneficial for all. However, it is also apparent that the disability groups do not think that this is the
case, and they express this in their letters to the Council prior to the decision about the detailed design.
Besides reiterating the already discussed concerns from Guide Dogs, the National Association of
Disabled Supporters write:
“We urge Members not to reject the recommendations of your own Access Group. The Access
Group’s recommendations are to:
 retain the kerbs, unless an alternative delineator is proven to be effective;
 install a controlled crossing outside the Victoria & Albert museum [...]”
(RBKC, 2009, p. 76)
RNIB also “supports the recommendations of the Exhibition Road Access group” (RBKC, 2009, p.
77). The repetition of the same claim can be seen as using the intertextual relations in order to gain
power for the discourse and discourse coalition.
Despite the concerns voiced over and over by different disability groups, the single surface design was
accepted at the Cabinet meeting in July 2009, which shows that the Exhibition Road Team was
successful in spreading their views and story-lines, out of which this one, the ‘proportionality
argument’ was the last one that we identified.
62
With this story-line we have arrived to the end of this part of the analysis. In the previous sections we
have analysed the story-lines we judged to be most important in relation to the power-struggle
between the actors and discourses in the planning process.
4.2.3 Summary of the analysis – story-lines and discourses
In this section, we place the analysed story-lines in relation to the discourses in the planning process of
Exhibition Road. Here the effect of the contested story-lines on the planning process and on the design
of shared space is detailed. This is followed by placing the discourses and story-lines on a timeline
according to their appearance and importance in influencing the planning process. By this, we can
summarise the analysis and provide an overview and understanding of the clash of discourses in the
planning process.
Shared space
Single surface
Traditional road
Something has to be done
Pedestrian priority
Accessibility
Good but not here
People are not ready for this
Consensus
The proportionality
argument
Figure 4.4 – The connection between the discourse coalitions and story-lines in the planning process of Exhibition
Road
By looking at the actors making statements in relation to the specific story-lines and the discourse
coalitions those actors belong to, it is possible to see how the discourse coalitions and story-lines relate
to each other. These relationships are shown in Figure 4.4. The arrows pointing towards each other in
the figure signify conflicts in relation to the story-lines, and represent their contested nature.
In the case of ‘accessibility’, this conflict appears between actors who share the story-line but
represent different discourses, and as a result interpret the accessibility of the road in different ways. In
the case of ‘good but not here’, however, the statements made in favour of the story-line are made by
actors representing the ‘single surface’ discourse, but they are in conflict with statements made by
Cllr. Moylan, the representative of the ‘shared space’ discourse in the investigated case. In this way,
the conflict is outside the story-line. This external conflicts also appears in relation to the story-lines
63
about ‘consensus’ and ‘the proportionality argument’, where actors representing the ‘traditional road’
discourse express their disagreement with the essence of these story-lines presented by proponents of
the ‘single surface’ discourse.
Some of these conflicts had very important impacts on the design process of Exhibition Road,
influencing the design of shared space and therefore will be detailed here.
First of all, the story-line about the ‘accessibility’ of the scheme became strongly contested, as the
needs of the general public and of people with different disabilities meant that it was very difficult to
create a design that was acceptable for all. This conflict about the accessibility requirements started a
long process aimed at an agreement about the detailed design of the road and it constitutes the second
layer of resistance against shared spaces.
Disability groups, led by Guide Dogs for the Blind, started a campaign against shared spaces. Their
main concern were schemes where pedestrians and cars used the same, undefined surface, as people
with vision impairment are unable to negotiate the traffic with the help of eye-contact. However, the
Exhibition Road Team did not want to implement such a scheme. They were willing to include
different zones for pedestrians and cars, for parking etc. The main conflict evolved around the question
of delineation between these zones. The disability groups saw this as a big safety-hazard for blind and
partially sighted people, and as an element of the design that had a negative impact on the accessibility
of the road.
The disability groups managed to argue their case with the help of research and convincingly
emotional arguments, using quotes from people with visual impairment about their experiences in
shared spaces. Additionally, they used the power of the dominant ‘traditional road’ discourse by
referring to the fact that these delineations – specifically kerbs – are what people use to navigate and
use streets, and that this is what makes streets safe. They also used the power of intertextual references
– something very typical to this discourse coalition – in order to gain power for their arguments and
discourse.
The concern of the disability groups became a problem, since the Exhibition Road Team saw some
elements of the design as fundamental: the single, kerb-free surface and the overarching criss-cross
pattern. The conflict between the goal of implementing a single surface scheme and the need for kerbs
expressed by disability groups, together with the need for consensus from the side of the Exhibition
Road Team led to a compromise that the Team offered. This compromise was the use of tactile
delineation between the different zones. The option of tactile delineation was initially accepted by
disability groups, with the condition that the delineator should be tested and proven effective. This
offer resulted in the testing of different tactile surfaces to see if they fit the purpose of replacing kerbs.
The testing process was influenced by the Exhibition Road Team in order to speed it up and arrive to a
result in time for the implementation of the scheme, but not everyone was entirely convinced by the
results of the research, which meant that the conflict was still not resolved.
However, the Exhibition Road Team also used other story-lines to gain sufficient power to implement
their favoured design.
This leads us to the discussion of another contested story-line: ‘consensus’. The representatives of the
‘single surface’ discourse coalition were consequentially reproducing this story-line in their statements
where they claimed that they involved everyone in the process and considered all opinions in the
64
decision-making. However, disability groups did not agree that this was the case, and they expressed
their feelings that their concerns regarding the safety and accessibility of the scheme were not heard
by the Exhibition Road Team.
This continuing disagreement led to the emergence of the final story-line: the ‘proportionality
argument’. The Exhibition Road Team needed a new communication strategy in order to be able to
have a detailed design in time for the project to be built according to the deadline set by the Mayor of
London: the 2012 London Olympic Games. The new strategy was to argue that this scheme would be
beneficial for most of the users of Exhibition Road, and to make the ‘traditional road’ discourse less
powerful by implying that a design that reflected that view would only benefit a small segment of
society.
With this, we have arrived to the final part of the summary of the analysis, where we are going to
place the presence and influence of the different discourses and story-lines in relation to the time-line
of events in the planning process of Exhibition Road.
Story-lines and discourses in time
In the previous section, we already began to discuss how the contested story-lines changed the powerbalance between the different discourses, initiating actors to take particular actions, and in certain
situations led to the emergence of new story-lines. In this section we are going to take this further, and
investigate when and how the different discourses and story-lines appeared or became relevant – or
irrelevant – in the planning process of Exhibition Road.
As discussed under ‘something has to be done’, Exhibition Road prior to the redesign was not able to
fulfil the functions required from such a central and busy street with many pedestrian visitors. This
was reinforced by the Access Audit made by David Bonnett Associates. This view was broadly
accepted, and the story-line as a result was powerful enough to initiate the design process.
However, this led to the question of what was expected of the new design. The most important thing
for the Project Partners for various reasons – legal obligations, funding – was ‘accessibility’, and this
became one of the key goals of the project. Another important goal was to improve the pedestrian
realm and create a design that provides ‘pedestrian priority’.
At the time of the beginning of the planning process, the commonly accepted approach to roads was
definitely represented by proponents of the ‘traditional road’ discourse, which defined the way of
thinking about and using roads since cars became dominant in traffic. However, the requirements of
‘pedestrian priority’ and ‘accessibility’ meant a significant change in relation to the ‘traditional road’
discourse, which can be viewed as placing car traffic in the centre of road design, and concentrates on
separating the different users of the road, and this separation often creates difficulties for pedestrians.
As a result, the concept design was influenced by the international ‘shared space’ discourse and
involved the concept of shared space as the basic idea for the new design of Exhibition Road. This is
reflected in the single surface design with an overall pavement with a criss-cross pattern.
The shared space concept, however, was a radical shift in relation to traditional roads. Statements
detailed under ‘people are not ready for this’ and ‘good but not here’ show that the Exhibition Road
Team did not want to implement a pure shared space, as they saw it unfit for the area. This led to the
emergence of the discourse of ‘single surface’ in the planning process during the first stages of
65
creating the detailed design, which became and remained dominant in the process until the
implementation of the scheme, including elements from both the ‘shared space’ and ‘traditional road’
discourses.
The single surface and the criss-cross pattern were the parts of the concept design influenced by the
‘shared space’ discourse that the Exhibition Road Team saw as fundamental for the scheme. The
single, kerb-free surface, was considered an answer to both the ‘accessibility’ and ‘pedestrian priority’
requirements. The fact that the goal of the Exhibition Road Team was to implement a single surface,
however, resulted in conflicts among the actors in the process, as detailed above. These conflicts, in
turn, led to the emergence of the ‘consensus’ and, eventually, the ‘proportionality argument’ storylines, which the Exhibition Road Team produced and spread in order to ensure that the design they
favoured would be implemented.
In the end, the detailed design that included tactile delineation but no kerbs was agreed upon and
accepted by the Cabinet of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. This shows that the ‘single
surface’ discourse was successful in changing the power-balance in the planning process and
overcome the previously dominant ‘traditional road’ discourse in the case.
The following figure illustrates the emergence and importance of the analysed discourses and storylines in relation to some of the most important events in the planning process:
Traditional road
Shared space
Single surface
2003
2004
July 2009
Competition Decision about the concept
Final design decision
Something has to be done
Contested
lines
Pedestrian priority
story-
Increase in the
influence on the
planning process
Decrease in the
influence on the
planning process
Accessibilty
Good, but not here
People are not ready for this
Consensus
Proportionality
Figure 4.5 – The appearance and importance of discourses and story-lines in relation to the timeline of events
Finally, some aspects of the process had consequences that either materialized after the end of the
planning process or had an impact that go beyond the case of Exhibition Road.
The ‘people are not ready for this’ story-line resulted in the use of temporary signs on Exhibition Road
in the first months after the implementation of the scheme. By this, the Exhibition Road Team
addressed the need for a step-by-step approach referred to by different actors in the process,
acknowledging the radical nature of the scheme. This made the implementation process safer by
giving people time to adjust to the new concept.
Some of the conflicts and arguments in the process also had consequences that go beyond the design
of Exhibition Road. These resulted in research into shared spaces and tactile delineations that could be
66
used in such schemes, and also in regulations or suggestions about shared spaces, published by
Department for Transport in 2011.
67
68
5.
Conclusions
In this chapter, the conclusions of the research will be drawn. It will begin with reiterating the aim of
the research and then we are going to move on to answer the two research questions introduced in
Chapter 1 of the report.
The goal of the project was to understand the problematic of implementing a road scheme based on a
radically new idea while the traditional concept of roads is still unquestionably dominant. This was
done by looking at the emergence of shared space as a transition between two fundamentally different
road systems.
As explained in Chapter 2.1, transitions are complex processes that involve a lot of various elements,
such as ideas and beliefs, the built environment, rules, regulations, habits in relation to certain
phenomena. However, our analytical unit was the discourse segment of this complexity, which we
investigated in our case study of Exhibition Road. In order to answer our research questions, we are
first going to present the conclusions of our discourse analysis of the case, and then we are going to
explain these conclusions in light of the multi-level perspective, broadening our view to a fuller image
of the transition.
5.1 Conclusions of the Case
In this section we are going to answer the first research question:
How and why did the competition between the different discourses in the planning process of
Exhibition Road influence the design of shared space?
After analysing the case of Exhibition Road, we can identify some specific ways in which the
competition of the discourses influenced the design of shared space and the reasons for their impact.
First of all, there were specific drivers for a radical change in road design, such as the need for
improving the pedestrian realm and the accessibility of the road, which also appear as story-lines in
the planning process. The existence of these drivers allowed the concept of shared space to be
considered despite its radical nature, however their existence alone was not enough to grant the
implementation of a shared space.
This leads us to the second way the clash of discourses influenced the design. The emerging discourse
of shared space found resistance from the side of the dominant discourse both because the existing
practices (regulations, rules, habits) differed fundamentally from shared space, and because certain
groups (specifically disability groups) used the dominant discourse to gain power for their own
(minority-concerned) argument. This resistance led to changes in the design of Exhibition Road
compared to a pure shared space scheme.
This resistance happened in two stages: the first one occurred in the beginning of the planning process
when the idea of the ‘single surface’ emerged as an attempt to synthesize the shared space concept
with the existing ideas about safety and accessibility of roads. The second stage of resistance appeared
during the planning process, and shaped the final design of Exhibition Road through the competition
of discourses, where the actors in different discourse coalitions used story-lines in order to gain power
and influence the implemented design.
69
The first stage of resistance from the side of existing ideas meant that the design included different
zones (for pedestrian and vehicular traffic, for parking etc.) from the very beginning of the planning of
the detailed design. This also shows the power of the dominant discourse - it did not even allow for the
idea to really have a role in the design phase.
The second stage of resistance was represented mainly by disability groups (especially Guide Dogs for
Blind) and resulted first in the introduction of a safe zone, and then in the inclusion of a tactile
delineation between the safe zone and the transition zone as well as between the pedestrian zone and
the carriageway.
Furthermore, the clash of discourses involved conflicts between actors that were rooted in the lack of
research and evidence about the shared space concept. The attempts to resolve these conflicts led to
the initiation of research into shared space and the appearance of regulations which is a step towards
establishing dominance of the emerging discourses.
5.2 Final Conclusions
Now that the impact of the competing discourses in the case study has been presented, it is possible to
move on to the final step in addressing our problem formulation. In the rest of this chapter we are
going to tie the case study to our theoretical framework and answer the second research question:
How can the influence of the competition between discourses on the design of shared space be
explained in light of the MLP approach to transitions?
As presented as part of our theoretical framework in Chapter 2, we consider the experimental
implementations of shared space as well as the concept of shared space as a novelty, which is located
in the niche-level of the multi-level perspective.
Our case study underlines some ways in which niche developments can become a part of the regime as
well as some difficulties these developments face.
According to the theory about the multi-level perspective, there are certain conditions that help niche
developments to break through into the regime. Changes in the landscape enable these innovations to
become more relevant and acceptable in relation to the regime if the dominant regime cannot adapt to
these landscape changes. Referring to shared space these openings can be identified as the main
drivers for change in the case of Exhibition Road: concepts such as pedestrian priority and
accessibility of roads. In a broader sense sustainability can also be listed here, since shared space is
often linked to sustainability.
However, the presence of openings in the regime is not sufficient for the breakthrough of niche
developments. Viewing the implementation of shared spaces as a novelty development in a transition
process means that if the steps taken towards their implementation in relation to the dominant regime
are too radical they can evoke resistance. The conclusions of our case study show that this has
happened in the case of Exhibition Road.
The reason for this resistance is that the dominant discourse about road use is highly institutionalised,
it is considered the “norm”, the only way roads can be used. This discourse can be related to the
landscape and regime level: it is represented in the built environment, in the mind-set of people in
70
relation to their ideas and habits about road use, as well as in regulations regarding roads and habits of
road designers and traffic engineers. These aspects and the dominant discourse mutually reinforce
each other, retaining the dominant position of the traditional road in the socio-technical regime. A
good example for this mutual reinforcement is that the majority of roads is still built according to the
traditional use, which means that radically different road use on these roads is not a feasible
possibility.
As our case study shows, because of the dominance of the traditional road use in the meso-level the
resistance from the regime led to some changes in the design of shared space.
In our opinion, these changes were necessary in order to arrive to a design that was possible to
implement in the case of Exhibition Road, a design that all - or most - actors in the process were able
to accept. The changes made the implementation of a radical novelty concept possible through
sufficiently assimilating it to the dominant regime. This led to a balance between the traditional and
radical elements in the scheme of Exhibition Road that sufficiently satisfied the majority of actors.
This commonly accepted scheme among the actors influencing the scheme of Exhibition Road is what
we classify as the “single surface” discourse, which seems to have emerged already before, or at least
in the very beginning of the planning process. It can be seen as an outcome of mutual adaptation
between traditional roads - the dominant regime - and shared spaces - a novelty development -, taking
elements of both of them and transforming them into something new. It is a layout with different zones
for different road users but less defined than in the case of the traditional road. This means that there is
no differentiation in the pavement pattern or in the level of the road apart from a tactile delineation.
Overall, our case study has shown that analysing the clash of discourses is a way to understand how
novelty developments can find a way into the regime with the help of changes in the landscape and
through ongoing mutual adaptation processes between the innovations and the concepts that are part of
the regime.
Referring back to our theoretical framework, we can also conclude that the transition towards a new
socio-technical regime in the field of road use is in the second phase. The characteristics that prove
this are:
 the existing pressure from the landscape has created some tensions in the regime;
 lobbying groups for the novelty are being formed (such as the Shared Space organization) and
they are gaining power;
 however, the network of actors representing the regime and their actions keep the regime
sufficiently stable, and this stability grants enough power to the dominant regime to have
significant influence on the evolution of the novelty;
 the factors above lead to an ongoing process of adaptation.
The planning process and the implementation of Exhibition Road had some effects in the regime level,
which were initiated by certain aspects of the process but had consequences that transcend the case: it
had initiated research into shared space, leading to the regulation of shared spaces. This means that a
definition is emerging, at least in the United Kingdom. The lack of definition is characteristic of
emerging innovations in transition theories, so the emerging definition is a sign of a step forward in
the process. This has the power to make the position of shared space stronger in the regime level. The
appearance of shared space in the regime level is a big step for shared spaces to move forward from
71
the niche level. This implies a move of the transition process towards the third phase (see Chapter
2.1.1).
The following figure illustrates the transition process according to our research:
Figure 5.1 The transition process towards a new socio-technical regime about road use (own work based on Geels, 2005)
It is possible that the concept of shared space will become gain dominance in the future (the current
processes point in that direction). The necessity of mutual adaptation process means, however, that
this will happen either through further changes compared to the original “pure” concept, or through the
gradual adaptation of the regime. The latter can happen if the regime, after accepting certain elements
of shared space through the implementation of projects or through regulations, etc., is faced with
another attempt at implementing a scheme that is radically different from the dominant regime. In this
case, the regime might accept further elements of shared space into itself. In this way, the shared space
could become more influential and still stay relatively close to its original concept.
In order to provide an understanding of how the outcome of the mutual adaptation process can be
controlled towards a specific regime, it is necessary to broaden our view on transitions and refer to
another theory instead of the multi-level perspective. According to the theory of transition
management, it is possible to control such long, ongoing processes of mutual adaptation (see Chapter
2.1). If planners hope to make the pure form of shared space more acceptable for society, it is
important that they act reflexively, being aware of the transition process and the actions it requires.
One aspect of it is the necessity of gradual change, so that the radical concepts introduced are similar
enough to the existing, dominant way of road use that it enables the cycle of learning and adaptation.
By referring to the necessity of gradual change, we mean that it is not sufficient to experiment with the
implementation of novelties and concentrate on the required change from the dominant regime. It is
also essential to have a vision of the future and of the new regime that should be arrived at as a result
of the transition process. This means that it is important to manage the transitions in the sense that the
72
steps to be taken and the goals of those steps are clear in the plan, because this can enable the cycles of
learning and adaptation towards the clarified overall goal of the transition process.
In other words, the management of the transition process could make it possible to guide the mutual
adaptation between the traditional concept of roads and shared space so that it results in a form that
can replace or coexist with the dominant regime and is still true to the original shared space idea.
73
74
6.
Reflections on Our Work
The theoretical framework used in this report is based on the multi-level perspective of transition
theories. However, the connections to road use that led to viewing shared space as a possible new
socio-technical regime were made by us. This perspective on the implementation of shared spaces can
contribute to the research of shared spaces with useful insights and a new understanding of the
difficulties and possibilities that such radical schemes face. It allowed us to provide some projections
and advice about the way shared spaces could become acceptable for the wider public.
Furthermore, the social constructionist approach to knowledge has some important implications for the
reliability of this research. We have provided a detailed explanation of our main analytical approach,
however, it is important to note that the choice of discourses and story-lines in the analysis could have
been affected by our context. This includes our educational and cultural background as well as the aim
of the report as a university assignment that had a specific focus.
Conducting a single case study is useful in some respects, as in this report it has provided insights into
viewing the implementation of shared space schemes as a move towards a new socio-technical regime.
However, it provides insight that is limited by the specific context of the case. In this regard,
investigating multiple cases could help in the generalization of the conclusions.
The fact that the case is located in a different country than where we are studying created certain
limitations for our research. We were only able to use online sources. It also resulted in a difficulty in
arranging interviews. As a result, the primary information that was available to us was limited because
we could not talk to all the actors involved in the planning process. Having access only to online
sources also meant that the newspaper articles used in the research were from a limited source, mainly
from The Guardian, which means that the ideological stance of the newspaper also had an impact on
the information gathered from these sources.
The fact that our analysis was limited to the time of the planning process meant that it did not include
the “afterlife” of the project. Investigating the processes around Exhibition Road from 2009 until
today could have provided further insights into the public perception of shared spaces and how they
were changed - if they were changed - by the implementation of the single surface scheme at
Exhibition Road. This could have led to more detailed and precise projections about the future of the
transition process investigated in the report.
75
76
Bibliography
Andrews, T., 2012. What is Social Constructionism.
Bauer, M., 1996. The Narrative Interview : Comments on a technique for qualitative data collection.
s.l.:London School of Economics and Political Science.
Burr, V., 1995. An Introduction to Social Constructionism. s.l.:Routledge.
Burr, V., 2003. Social Constructionism. 2nd ed. Sussex: Routledge.
Denzin, N., 1995. Symbolic Interactionism. In: Rethinking Psychology. London: Sage.
Foxon, T. et al., 2009. Transition pathways for a UK low carbon energy system: exploring different
governance patterns. Amsterdam, s.n.
Geels, F., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level
perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, Volume 31, pp. 1257-1274.
Geels, F., 2005. The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-technical Systems: A Multi-level Analysis of
the Transition Pathway from Horse-drawn Carriages to Automobiles (1860-1930). Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, 17(4), pp. 445-476.
Geels, F. & Schot, J., 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory,
findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), p. 537–
554.
Gerlach, J., Methorst, R., Boenke, D. & Leven, J., n.d. Sense and nonsense about Shared Space - For
an objective view of a popular planning concept. s.l.:s.n.
Guide Dogs for the Blind, 2006. Shared Surface Street Design Research Project - The Issues: Report
of Focus Groups, s.l.: s.n.
Hajer, M. A., 2003. Chapter 3 - A frame in the fields: policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In:
M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar, eds. Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge:
Cambridge Universty Press, pp. 88-110.
Hajer, P. D. M. A., 1995. The Politics of Enviromental Discourse : Ecological Modernization and the
Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hajer, P. D. M. A., 2005. Coalitions, Practices, and Meaning in Environmental Politics: From Acid
Rain to BSE. In: D. Howarth & J. Torfing, eds. Discourse Theory in European Politics. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 297-315.
Hamilton-Baillie, B., 2008. Towards Shared Space. Urban Design International, Volume 13, pp. 130138.
Hastings, A., 2013. Discourse and Linguistic Analysis. In: K. Ward, ed. Researching the City.
Manchester: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 85-98.
Inc., G., n.d. [Online]
Available at: https://www.google.com/maps/preview
[Accessed 15 May 2014].
Jorgensen, U., 2012. Mapping and navigating transitions - The multi-level perspective compared with
arenas of development. Research Policy, Volume 41, pp. 996 - 1010.
Jorgensen, U. & Sorensen, O. H., 1999. Arenas of Development - A Space Populated by Actor-worlds,
Artefacts, and Surprises. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(3), pp. 409-429.
Kaparias, I. et al., 2012. Analysing the perceptions of pedestrians and drivers to shared space. Elsevier,
pp. 297-310.
Kemp, R., Loorback, D. & Rotmans, J., 2007. Transition management as a model for managing
processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology,, 14(1), pp. 78-91.
Methorst, R., 2007. Shared Space : Safe or dangerous?. Toronto: s.n.
Moody, S. & Melia, S., 2012. Shared space - research policy and problems. s.l.:s.n.
77
Moody, S. & Melia, S., 2013. Shared space - research policy and problems. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers - Transport.
Norton, P., 2008. Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. 1 ed.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rip, A. & Kemp, R., 1998. Technological Change. In: S. R. a. L. Malone, ed. Human Choice and
Climate Change, Vol 2. Resources and Technology. Washington: Batelle Press, pp. 327-399.
Roorda, C. et al., 2012. Transition Management in Urban Context, Rotterdam: Dutch Research
Institute for Transitions (DRIFT).
Rotmans, J., Asselt, M. & Kemp, R., 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in
public policy. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 14(1), pp. 78-91.
Sandercock, L., 2003. Out of the Closet: The Importance of Stories and Storytelling in Planning
Practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 4(1), pp. 11-28.
Schlabbach, K., 2011. Shared Space, s.l.: Harbour City University Hamburg.
Shared Space, 2008. Final Evaluation and Results, Leeuwarden: Shared Space.
Shove, E. & Walker, G., 2007. CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics, practice and sustainable
transition management. Environment and Planning, 39(4), pp. 763-770.
Sorensen, O. H. & Jorgensen, U., 1999. Arenas of Development—A Space Populated by Actorworlds, Artefacts, and Surprises. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,.
Throgmorton, J. A., 1992. Planning as Persuasive Storytelling About the Future: Negotiating an
Electric Power Rate Settlement in Illinois. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Volume 12,
pp. 17-31.
Vanderbilt, T., 2008. Traffic: Why we drive the way we do and what it says about us.. London:
Penguin Books.
Newspaper Articles
The Guardian, Stop! A London council wants to remove traffic lights from busy roads. This might be
a motorist's dream - but health and safety officers don't agree. Who will win the fight?, 2007
Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/30/transport.london
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
The Guardian, Rip out the traffic lights and railings. Our streets are better without them, 2008
Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/feb/29/guardiancolumnists
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
The Guardian, A farewell to pavements, 2011
Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/nov/11/london-exhibition-roadcultural
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
The Guardian, Exhibition Road, London – review, 2012
Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/jan/29/exhibition-road-rowan-moorereview
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
78
London Evening Standard, Shared space is the future for London's roads, 2009
Retrieved from: http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/shared-space-is-the-future-forlondons-roads-7313484.html
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
Online articles
transformingcities.co.uk, Kensington High Street Revamped, n. d.
Retrieved from:
http://www.transformingcities.co.uk/kensington-high-street-revamped/
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
politics.co.uk, Guide Dogs and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea join forces on
Exhibition Road project, 2010
Retrieved from:
http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/guide-dogs-for-the-blind-association/article/guide-dogsand-the-royal-borough-of-kensington-and-chelsea-j
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
rudi.net (Resource for Urban Development International), Shared surface plan for Exhibition Road
axed in favour of ‘safe space’, no date
Retrieved from: http://www.rudi.net/node/21479
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
thisbigcity.net, Mixing Cars, Cyclists & Pedestrians on Exhibition Road – London’s Take on Shared
Space, 2012
Retrieved from: http://thisbigcity.net/mixing-cars-cyclists-pedestrians-shared-space-london/
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
Public Documents
Mayor of London, The Mayor’s 100 Public Spaces Programme – Update on the ten pilot projects,
December 2003
Retrieved from: http://legacy.london.gov.uk/mayor/auu/publications.jsp
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), Minutes of a meeting the Cabinet held at
Kensington Town Hall, London, 2009
Retrieved from:
http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/CSU/Cabinet%20Member%20Decisions//Archived%20Decisions/Ci
ty_Management/2010/03%20%20The%20Exhibition%20Road%20Project/Appendix%20B%204%20February%202010.pdf
Date accessed: 21/03/2014
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), 5 January 2010 Open letter from The Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to Guide Dogs for the Blind, 2010
Retrieved from:
http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/subsites/exhibitionroad/newsandevents/pressreleases/guidedogsfortheblind.as
px
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
79
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), City of Westminster, Mayor of London;
Exhibition Road Newsletter, March 2010
Retrieved from: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/Exhibition-Road-news-march2010.pdf
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
Videos
YouTube 1, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqGWz_lafa8
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
YouTube 2A, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWxYHJiT_bU
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
YouTube 2B, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Almq3sDK9o
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
Websites
David Bonnett Associates (DBA), David Bonnett Associates, no date
http://www.davidbonnett.co.uk
Date accessed: 01/06/2014
Exhibition Road, Where is Exhibition Road?, 2010
http://www.exhibitionroad.com/where
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
Google Inc., Google Maps, no date
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0625,-95.677068,4z
Date accessed: 01/06/2014
Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (Guide Dogs), Guide Dogs UK Charity for the Blind and
Partially Sighted, 2014
http://www.guidedogs.org.uk
Date accessed: 01/06/2014
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), Exhibition Road open for business, February
2012
Retrieved from: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pressrelease/pressreleasePage.aspx?id=3979
Date accessed: 27/05/2014
This Big City – ideas for sustainable cities, 2012
Retrieved from: http://i1.wp.com/thisbigcity.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/IMG_1268.jpg
Date accessed: 27/05/2014
World News, Exhibition Road, 2012
Retrieved from: http://eyeonportland.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/exhibition-road.jpg
Date accessed: 26/05/2014
80
Appendix A
Interview (audio)
Available on CD
81
82
Appendix B
Transcript of interview
Bill Mount: BM
David Bonnett: DB
[Introductions with BM, general chatter 0:00- 0:38
DB arrives, chatter, introductions, offers coffee 0:00-02:00]
(02:00) DB: Well you could be here for the whole day… and still enjoy it actually, there’s so much to
see honestly. Yes, yes.
(02:09) But… in a way the museum is a victim of its own success it’s so popular… that it’s difficult
to cope. And that’s the same with the road. The road could not meet the requirements of the buildings
and the public needs.
(02:40) But, uhm… now. You gave me your names on an e-mail..
[acknowledgement]
DB: … and I can’t remember any of them. That’s…
(BM: All right)
DB: … yeah, so that’s right. But the reason I’d like to, I’ll make a note here is that I’m a member of
the International Union of Architects, the UIA [sic], they’re meeting in Denmark this af… tomorrow
until Wednesday[?].
[… 03:05 – 03: 39 talking about our education program]
[Bill comes back to the table]
(03:40) DB: Bill I was just saying that the museum is a victim of its own success in some respects…
BM: Yes, yes.
DB: … And the road represents… what happened out there was an absolute essential…
BM: Yes.
DB: … for the museums to function.
(03:55) BM: And, and what’s nice they’re also planning things now, changes, which are related to
Exhibition Road, which are affected by it, and so.. uhm, sorry, the Victoria and Albert Museum
there… there’s a big excavation going on at the courtyard, and they changed their plans because they
now [] what’s gonna happen there, there’s gonna be a courtyard, with a contour[?], and, so, you’re
going to be able to walk off Exhibition Road through the colonnade. That colonnade that’s there, they
dropped all the windows in it to ground level, so you there[?] can walk through, into the square, and
[?] to the contour, and the contour will take you down to the… to a below-ground exhibition space for
all the temporary exhibitions of the V&A and they said apparently that the reason they’re doing it like
that is because of the Exhibition Road being more of a, a good entrance.
DB: Yes, yeah.
[4:44 – 5:02 Asks about whether we can follow the language]
(05:04) DB: But we’d better start at the beginning. What, so, you’re asking us questions rather than
we’re asking you, so… you’d better get on with it. Let’s...
Eszter: Yes, um… sorry I just, uhm, my notes are on the phone, so, we’re going to use that. Yes.
(05:22) Well, we will start with asking some uhm general questions about uhm your role in the process
and then uhm more specific about certain things that we already found out that happened in relation to
your role but we don’t really… it’s like we found headlines, you know…
(DB: Yes)
Eszter:… in a council meeting..minutes thing. So it’s not a lot of explanation, it’s just…
(DB: Oh, no. I understand)
83
Eszter: And then… yes, maybe something about the competition if you know anything about it.
(BM: Oh yes.
DB: Bill will do.)
Eszter: And, yes, then about shared spaces more… in more… of a general way.
DB, BM: Ok.
Bartosz: We have some [?]
(06:05) BM: And if you wish to contact me afterwards, I mean it may be that there’s some other
questions that you could think of…
BM: … later so I can… if you e-mail me…
BM: … and then… I can…
DB: Yes, yes.
BM: Or I can come over to Copenhagen! [laughs]
DB: Well I should be there this weekend but I had to say no, cause my hands are so bad at the
moment, which is such a shame, uhm. But what I could also do is…
(06:25)…first of all, do you know what my role was and what Bill’s role was?
Eszter: Uhm, not really. Well, we know that you were the access consultant, but…
DB: That’s right. Yeah.
Eszter: … not really more specifically.
(06:39) DB: [points to Bill] This is the man who made it all happen. Uhm… In…
BM: As a… so called lead officer.
DB: The lead officer for the local authority. So Bill was working on this before I was, long before.
Uhm…
(06:56) And I think it’s fair to say that the scheme was going to be controversial because it wanted to
sweep away all the clutter and clear the road, but in doing that, that might present problems with
usability with certain people, particularly blind people, but others maybe as well.
(07:12) And the project, which included Bill, uhm, came to the conclusion that an access consultant, as
we know it in this country, I don’t know whether it is the same in Denmark, maybe yes, maybe no, no,
so maybe we’re unusual here in what we do, should be appointed. So, I was asked along with others to
an interview and got the job. Wonderful.
BM: He came highly recommended. [laughs]
(07:46) And… it might help if I give you a kind of… fairly quick timeline of, of, of… of the process.
And…
Eszter: We have a rough timeline, but yes, of course…
(07:56) BM: I mean, there was a previous scheme called the Exhibition Way Project, which was
developed by Fosters Architects and the concept design produced. And, um, the idea was that we were
going to submit that. I became involved in that right at the end, it was going to be submitted for
Heritage Lottery Fund, and in 199… 1997. But… and it was, this, the Kensington Chelsea Council
together with two of the museums were going to submit the bid at… in 1997. At the last minute, the
summer of 1997, um, the two museums pulled out, they said they’re not willing to make a bid, oh, the
council was very annoyed with that, and they thought that… that the reason was, I think, was that the
museums were worried that they would not get funds for their own projects inside the museums, I
think that was the kind of politics of it.
(08:56) But I was asked, at that point, in 1997, to look out for opportunities to revive the scheme, and
that came in 2000, when London had a new Mayor, [? name] became the, and we were written to by
the government, saying do we have any large expensive projects [DB and all laugh], really, do we
have any large expensive transport projects, that the… that, that the Mayor might be interested in. And
we thought, and I just immediately thought, because I’m quite a hustler, really, I immediately thought,
ah, Exhibition Way, and so we submitted it there.
84
(09:32) And we got three years of development money in… for the years 2003/4 to 2005/6, three
years, we got £150 000 a year to develop the project. But this was a project that there was already a
concept design for.
(10:00)The council agreed that it would… take the lead in developing the project, it would, it would...
and, but that we would work together with um, the Mayor of London, and also the, there’s another
council involved, Westminster, half of Exhibition Road is in, the southern half is in Kensington and
Chelsea, which is who I worked for, the northern other half is in, um, Westminster. And also, the
Mayor was willing to…was talking about funding, so basically there were three parties.
(10:32) And I said, well, what I said to the council is what I didn’t think was a good idea was, was if
we were partners with the museums, because of what they’d done before, and we wanted to, really to
keep to project, to the, um, the street, and the tunnel... . So what happened, but… I said, but we
wouldn’t…
(10:52) But what we did say was, we worked very closely with the museums to develop the project in
detail. And… so that was all agreed, and so, three partners, but not museums, but we would work
closely with the museums, so… the…
(11:07) One of the first things we did was we set up a so-called, um, Infrastructure group, which was
representatives from the council and from the museums, from the two councils and from the Mayor
and museums, and, um… we met, we started discussing this concept design by Norman Foster, cause
they had just done Trafalgar Square, that was opening, and their big success, so, if, they’d, you know,
we talked a [?] with them.
(11:37) But very early on in the discussion with the museums, and, um, with the [?] we realized that
the Exhibition Way Project wasn’t the one suitable anymore for... um... the area. Because basically, in
November 2001 the… the free entry t-to the museums had been reintroduced. Um, under Margaret
Thatcher it had been, um, stopped, and you had to pay, I had to pay, if I came with my children it used
to cost £15 back in the 1980’s to take your children to the museums, and so.. so their upbringing, they
had to pay. [?] as [?]
(12:21) …in 2001, November 2001, abolished museum charges, and so the museums were saying that,
the numbers were started going up very rapidly, and they no longer needed,
(12:36) th-the Exhibition Way proposal was to streetscape improvements and also a large underground
visitor centre, like the Louvre. It was a very similar idea to the Louvre, where they had light wells,
and, not a pyramid, but they still had, you know, these light wells. So the museums were saying, this is
no longer what we, we no longer want this, we no longer want a visitor centre.
(12:54) So we listened to them, and we decided to have a competition, to choose a new designer that
we would work with, to develop a project.
(13:05) And we wanted.. and.. and.. we had a number of objectives for the project, and it was [?] here
in the Natural History Museum, said, one of the objectives she thought we should have was one, that
we wanted to make, I can’t remember the exact term, but it was a highly, the most accessible… um…
streetscape possible. You know. So we… we had an objective that we wanted it to be very… um…
very accessible.
(13:32) We also had objectives about keeping the traffic, we had objectives about improving the
pedestrian realm, we had objectives about, that it should be very good design, high quality of design,
and… there were about ten objectives, but very high on that was access- accessibility.
(13:54) So, in 2003, 2-2003 was spent, the year 2003 was spent developing a, a project brief. So, a
competition brief. So this was, it was to be given to the short-listed design practices for them to then
make presentations to us. And what we… and in that brief we set out these objectives, we had a lot of
history about the area, and, um, and we made it clear in the brief that we didn’t want them to come up
with a design, we wanted them to come up with, kind of ideas, and also to, you know, give, um… give
an idea of how they would work, and show an ability to work with people, to be, collegiate, you know.
85
(14:43) So at the end of 2003, so we had a, um, a long listing process and then a short listing process,
and we had 8 short-listed design practices, and at the end of 2003, we had the, the selection process
with a jury, and we selected a company called Dixon Jones. And that was at the end of 2003. And then
we selected them, and, um, I was really pleased to say [?], they were really good. Zaha Hadid was on
the short list of people, um, and um, [names other shortlisted practices].
(15:38) DB: Bill, with that background, because your main interest is in the disabled access
consultation side, is it?
(15:49) Bartosz: Yeah, but because the concept that won was, like, very connected to the idea of the
shared space…
(15:55) BM: Well, this is what happened, if I then go on… in 2000… what we said, we wanted to
make it very accessible, we wanted it to be, to raise the status of the pedestrians, and, and so we, we
were obviously looking to quite a radical solution.
(16:15) In 2004, so during 2004, we developed the concept design.
(16:20) And about half way through 2004, we, um decided to appoint um, a, an access consultant, to
help in the development of the concept design. So [looks at David] you- you were actually taken on
before we’d actually got, there were ideas, but it was before we had the concept design.
(16:44) … And we set up an access group, which D-David attended, and we had um, representatives
from the different, um, you know, from the blind, from the, from wheelchair users, and so on, so, so,
so discussions in developing the design were, involved them as well, and we had an access officer at
the council, yeah, a specialist in, Sue, Sue…
[DB: Lyons.]
(17:12) BM: Yeah, that’s right. So in the end of 2004, we launched the concept design, right, and then
I was told, now you’ve got to find money [laughs]. So basically the council had the money for
developing, you know, the, we had the money from the Mayor, for developing the design, but we also
needed to then, to try and get the money to actually build the scheme, you know.
(17:37) So we had to, from the beginning of 2005 we had to then get on with the detail design, and we
also had to, you know, had discussions about finding the money. And so that’s where we were at the
beginning of 2005… yeah, 2005. And um, and then there was a process after that of getting the
money, which was difficult, we had hoped to get the money from, money from government, that didn’t
come, but in the end we got money from, um, the Mayor of London, and we also…
(Egle: And Transport of London)
BM: … Transport for London, yeah, but there was, yeah, and also the Kensington and Chelsea
Council also, very wealthy council, they decided to fund…
(18:20) So out of the £25 million cost of the scheme, it w- it was about £30 million actually, £5
million pounds was for getting rid of the one-way system around the station, and then 25 million was
for Exhibition Road itself. And about 12 million came from Kensington and Chelsea Council, about
12 million from the Mayor of London, and about 1 million from Westminster. It was… for them it
wasn’t high profile, but we… we were anxious that the whole of the street should be done. Um. So
that was the… that was the funding.
(18:52) Now in developing the scheme, in developing the concept design, as I say was, that in the
beginning of 2005 we had a concept design, we then went out to talk to people, and um, we had public
consultation, and about the middle of 2005 on this design with local people and also with visitors,
there were two lots of public consultation, and all the time we had these meetings of the access group.
(19:20) DB: Just gonna go back a square, Bill, if I might, because what the context of this is that, that
Bill’s talking about, year 2000 thereabouts, when this started to happen. We had our disability
discrimination act in 1995, and that had a timeline of 10 years, 2005 for the world to be flat and
completely accessible. With this highly optimistic ambition, um. But, the nuts and bolts were in place
and there was an expectation there for um, the buildings to improve, existing buildings, even historic
86
existing buildings, that’s important, because in a sense that’s historic [points around], this is all
historic.
(20:06) And you got a collision course between those expectations on the one hand, and the
conservation architectural world on the other. So you got the legal imperatives there, there are
expectations not just from the public, but from the board, the people who run this museum here, all
have an ambition which they have to carry through. So, they were expecting something to happen by
way of inclusive design as well. You had a champion, and… do you understand the word ‘champion’
in the sense that within an organisation you’ve got to have somebody who is determined about a
particular aspect. That was [] in some respects.
BM: For an inclusive design.
DB: Inclusive design.
(20:58) BM: That’s what she pushed very much, inclusive design. The most inclusive design possible,
yeah.
(21:02) DB: She was an interesting, she was the director here of physical services, she had a long
history of improving access, the Royal Festival Hall, the South Bank Centre, then she came here. So…
she was on a mission. That’s always important to have that character.
(21:23) Um, because inclusive design was relatively new, following the Disability Discrimination Act,
there weren’t many professional people who could carry out work. I was one of the few, lucky
me…So there wasn’t that much competition, I don’t suppose, Bill, but there may have been, I don’t
know…
(21:37) BM: There were.. we interviewed… 4 consultants.
DB: 4, yeah.
BM: But you know, you were… you were the best [laughs]. We are the best! [all laugh]
DB: We are the best, yeah. So that’s good, but the other thing than is that
(21:55) …this Borough has its own head, I don’t know who it has now, it’s own access officer. So
within this local authority there was an ambition of inclusive design. So you’ve got all these things
coming together, this synergy that builds upon an expectation.
(22:12) But than finally, lot of it’s down to money, and the Heritage Lottery Fund, this is terribly
important, the Heritage Lottery Fund that [] Council of England preceded the DDA, and because it’s
public money being used for projects like that, like this, there’s an expectation from the public about it
should be accessible to the public, everybody, without exceptions. And if you want money, from them,
it’s got to deliver on accessibility, do you understand? So that’s- that’s the- the bit that really worked.
(22:53) BM: That’s right, so in preparing, we prepared… in 2005 as I was saying we had to do the
detail design, and we also had to try to get fund-funding. And we- as I was saying we went out to
public consultation in the summer of 2005, and that was also part of our bid to the Heritage Lottery
Fund, cause we were bidding to them for funding for the streetscape improvements and also for
improvements for the underground, the tunnel. Um. And as David says, it was the improvement, that,
(23:24)…it was important that we showed that we were taking inclusive design seriously. Which we
we-, we were taking it seriously anyway, and we had to show in the bid that we were taking it
seriously.
(23:40) We prepared the bid, and we were, we were long listed, for funding, which was good, but the
money that was available, it wasn’t a lot of money, there was £140 million available, over the United
Kingdom, for about 5 projects, and, um, but we felt that, the government had pointed us at the
direction, this is where the public money is, so we… we were long listed, and then we went through
quite a rigorous process, with 3 days of interviews, and a big, you know, pile of documentation
submitted to the Lottery Fund, including design, inclusive y-you know, design elements, including the
access arrangements, and in fact, we were told by the, we were told that it had gone very well, and we
expected to be short listed.
87
(24:27) However, I don’t know if you remember, but in July 2005 London won the bid for the
Olympics, and a lot of the funding for that was going to come from the Lottery. So… although the
external assessor, that, we had external assessors who looked at our bid, and they, they hinted quite
strongly that we were going to get short-listed, um, when it came to August 2005, we were t- I think
that’s right, or was it 2006, no it was 2006, quite a long process, we were told that we hadn’t been
short-listed.
(25:02) And we were really quite devastated, because we thought, well, we thought, at least we would
get short-listed, even though we might not get money for the project. And, um, and the reason we
didn’t get short-listed was because the-the Heritage, the Lottery people were very angry with the
government, cause so much of the funding for the Olympics was going to come from the Lottery.
(25:28) So we then had to then look into other ways of funding the scheme, and um, that’s when the
Council that it would pay for a lot of it. I think it always was going to pay for a lot of it, but, and the
Mayor was always going to pay, and, and, but I don’t think you want to know too much about funding,
but that’s essentially – in 2007 we got the first lot of money, for doing the scheme, and then in 2009,
beginning of 2009, we’ve heard from the Mayor that we were getting 10 million, not a penny more,
for the scheme, but it’d already funded some of it, and- and the Council decided to fund the rest, and
the that’s, the rest is history. The Mayor said it, said it was very important that it should be finished
before the Olympics. He wanted it ready for the Olympi- the entire Olympics, so… so that was…
(26:12) DB: Yeah, so that’s another.. I’m gonna chip in again Bill, cause that’s another good thing, is
about, is, that’s okay, is it? [looks at the Dictaphone] Yes, just. But to have a deadline. Um, and it’s,
we worked on the Olympic project as well, and that had a deadline, and it means decisions, you have
to make decisions to get on and make a design.
(26:36) I think Bill what’s terribly important is that when we were appointed as access consultants,
the first thing we did was to look at the street as a piece of urban design as it is, and say would we
design it like that if we had a fresh, clean piece of paper. And the answer was no. And… but… this
was terribly important though to say why, what was wrong with the street, what were we going to fix.
And if you remember Bill, on our report, you can see all these [] in there. We took photographs of the
pavement that was that wide, with all these children, the public trying to go to work, to the station,
children getting off buses, [] pedestrians trying to use the pavement with… it was simply a street that
did not work. Worse than that, it was actually quite dangerous for some people. You put a blind person
with a guide dog in front of forty children getting off the bus, then it’s difficult.
(27:41) BM: Well, in fact, the Council, the Council, the social services, I think that someone there,
who trains people, blind people to use the area, you know, so when someone says they’ve got a job in
South Kensington, they’ll be, they were trained to use the, the Council Office, they refused to train
blind people to use South Kensington, because it was so dangerous.
(28:02) It used to be, like you said, when you came out of the station, it was a 2,5 metre wide
pavement when you came out the station, now, it, both sides of the station I think, and on, and on this
side, there was a line of bus stops. So there were people waiting for buses, a 2,5 metre wide pavement,
and traffic going through. And no formal crossing points. You know. It was all, un, you know,
uncontrolled. So it was, as I say, it, so they actually didn’t train blind people to use the South
Kensington Street. The blind people that did work in the area used the tunnel. They actually used the
tunnel to get access…
DB: Which you’re aware of.
BM: … they went underground. So it was a very, as you say, you did an audit, basically, didn’t you.
(28:42) DB: We did what we call an access audit, which is looking systematically at the [] street and
say would we do it this way, and the answer was no, but then the question was, well, what would you
do, but we had a list of objectives, back to the objectives again. So you got your audit here, which is
getting across, we list a series of objectives which we apply to any urban design project: where would
88
a taxi drop somebody off, what about the bus stop, what about walking distance from the station, is
there a lift from the station up to street level, no, still not, that’s to come we hope.
BM: It is coming.
(29:22) DB: It is coming. But we had a list of objectives. Given all the money we need and all the
ambition and so on, could those objectives be met. And the answer is theoretically yes. Now what we
did then is look at the scheme on as it was presented at that stage, and audit the scheme then in relation
to those objectives, to see where we got our chips.
BM: Yes.
DB: And that, Bill, was a crucial point.
(29:49) BM: And that was in the concept design, wasn’t it.
DB: It was.
BM: That was the concept design, which was an outline design, but it was.. the… the idea of the single
surface, the idea of the criss-cross pattern, that was in the concept design, but what we didn’t show
was how do we define the edges, and so on. That was still to come.
(30:12) DB: I’m gonna pause, because how are we doing in relation to your questions?
Eszter: I actually just, is this, what you’re talking about, the second one, is that the one that was in
October 2006, the Design Review?
DB: Yes. That’s the Design Review.
Eszter. Yes, that wasn’t very clear, what that means.
DB: Yes, so, that was the Design Review, but in fact, I mean we could send that report to you.
Eszter: That would be great.
DB: Electronically. Yeah, um.
(30:42) BM: Yes, because in the beginning of 2005 all you had was a a concept design, it was a single
surface, it was the general idea, but it didn’t, it wasn’t the detailing, which is what your review, of
course is, but the Design Review in 2006, that’s what that, that is about, yes.
(30:59) DB: Then, from that Design Review, um, that was presented to the Access Group. What Bill’s
outlined why we had an Access Group, but with any big project, usually speaking, with Heritage
Lottery Funding or [with ] Council funding they say you got to have an Access Group. So it’s
condition of funding. And if you have an Access Group, usually it has to be taken seriously, somebody
has to run it, organise the meetings, and so on. And there were here a lot of them, no?
BM: Oh yes, yes.
DB: Just up there [points to the gallery]. And I, I used to attend those, and Bill did, as well.
(31:39) BM: And we set it, we set it up before we knew it was a requirement, you know, because, you
know we, we, we just thought it was a good thing to do anyway.
DB: Yes, but you would have had to.
BM: We would have had to, but we were able to say, that’s one thing you have got.
(31:54) DB: But for our friends in Denmark, if… I don’t know whether access groups are a
requirement in certain projects in your country or not, you see.
Bartosz: Well, in Denmark, we are not so sure, we are not from Denmark.
DB: Where do you come from then?
[32:05 – 32:42 chatter about countries]
(32:42) DB: But anyway, in the UK, and certainly in England, for any major project you would have
an access consultancy group. Now, that group is made up ideally of people representing a range of
disabilities, which now would include older age, incidentally, because increasing age in the Western
world and this country is, is added a whole lot of momentum to inclusive design, because it’s required
by a larger group. And Bill, that group was drawn from a range of people who we got to know around
London, who are familiar with the area and used it routinely and had an opinion, that’s the point. They
89
got an opinion about how it works or it doesn’t work. So they’re all vocal, and they’re all fighters, and
you expect them to be as well.
(33:34) And we presented this [the Design Review] to the group. And some liked it, and some didn’t.
That’s the case, Bill, isn’t it.
BM: Yeah.
(33:44) DB: And the question is with the people who liked it, fine, problem is, the people who didn’t
like it became very vocal. In fact, they undermined your submission.
(33:58) BM: Yes, well, I, and in fact I’ll try not to get too angry about it.
Eszter: Actually this is what we are most interested in…
DB: Ah, yeah.
BM: The Guide Dogs.
Eszter: … the whole…
BM: OK.
(34:12) Eszter:… shared space to the single surface and what the dynamics were in the situation.
(34:14) BM: Yes, well. I think, well, one of the things that’s important in the design, in the detail
design is, there was pressure from a certain councillor, who was a champion for the scheme, Daniel
Moylan, he wanted a very, very, um, free space. You know, very undefined. And I was concerned
about that, because, because and I think, you’ve already made a point, when, in 2000, when we really
started on this, 2001, and then in… it was quite early days for the whole shared space idea.
(34:49) It was coming from North Holland, and you, so you have um, I’m also part Dutch as well. But
you have Hans Monderman, that, promoting, you know, he’s becoming, you know, becoming known
in this country, and then suddenly we’ve got this huge project, and there’s pressure from the coun… a
particular councillor, that he wants it shared space.
(35:12) And then you’re looking at Holland, and you see, well, actually the schemes in Holland are
much smaller then this, and also, when you look at the detail in Holland, it’s not completely free for
all, though, some of the people who are promoting it are saying it’s a complete free for all, everyone’s
negotiating, actually, when you go to Drachten, um, you see a roundabout design, actually, when the
driver goes in he knows how to use it, he or she knows how to use it. It’s a roundabout, you know, and
you’re hinted at how you behave.
(35:41) So I had this, there was a tension between me and the, with the designers, and this councillor,
who wanted this totally free space, and um, so what evolved was, um, still a single surface, but some
definition of where the pedestrians would go, and where the drivers would go.
(36:02) And, and my view was, I was happy for the drivers to be a little bit uncertain, but I definitely
wanted the pedestrians to be very clear about where it was safe and then where they needed to watch
out for traffic.
(36:13) So, we developed a design, um, where we, um had a single surface, but the contour of the
road, the profile of the road still had a drainage and you had a drainage channel marked out and also
we used a tactile to, the, the tactile, to show the edge, on the East side the edge, and on the West side
in the end we decided to show it, where, you know, where the old pavement line used to be and so we
said basically, for people who needed the tactile surface, [] they should be near the buildings, in this
kind of four-metre-wide zone between the tactile and the building on each side.
(36:52) DB: Gonna pause there as well, Bill, because, that, this is terribly important, this, in a sense a
trade-off has to emerge in relation to the benefits, so the project was committed to a single surface as
an idea, and with the… the opposition to that was the concerns widely speaking of people, blind
people who relied on a kerb, a raised kerb to defined what was safe and not safe.
(37:24) Um, however, around this time, Bill, you may not know this, but the Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment, CABE, which is still going incidentally, commissioned a
piece of work on how blind people, um, totally blind people move around in the urban spaces. And
90
there were a lot of, it blew away some misconceptions, because a lot of what helps them get around is
their memory. Their familiarity with where they are, and it’s not the kerb, it’s actually the face of the
building that provides the greatest reassurance of where they are. Now that was crucial.
Eszter: Excuse me, could you maybe send this also to us? Because…
DB: I’ll try and find it.
BM: Was that the work done by
DB: Royal College of Art
(38:19) BM: Royal College of Art, yes. That was an interesting piece of work, because in 1995 the
department of transport had produced guidelines on tactile surfaces, um, so if you go around at the
pedestrian crossing you’ll see what’s called blister, you know, the circular, they had also produced a
corduroy marking, and that was, the message from that was, “hazard ahead, proceed with caution”.
And you’ll see this at the tops and bottoms of stairs in most of the underground stations in London.
(38:51) But that’s the one that we decided would be a good one to use instead of a kerb, you know,
instead of having a kerb we could use, we could run that, and that would, so anyone crossing that, he
would have the warning “hazard ahead, proceed with caution”. So that was what we were kind of
proposing.
(39:10) I think I will mention one other point about the, the work with the Access Group. We, when
we set up the Access Group, there was a certain membership. And, the, it was set up in the middle of
2004, and David was also around then, we produced the concept design, the single surface, but without
detail. When we started doing the detail design, about 4 months into that, an organization called Guide
Dogs for the Blind asked if they could join the Access Group. And we in fact, someone in the Access
Group said Guide Dogs for the Blind has asked to join, and I said fine, no problem [laughs]
DB: Of course…
BM: Of course, no problem, you know, you know, I like dogs, you know me,
(39:55) …and so they joined, but they were very-very difficult. And when they disagreed, they didn’t
work collectively with the other members of the group, they would do separate press releases, I mean,
I’ll be careful what I say, but they, they issued separate press releases and there was a lot of criticism
of the way they operated. And they also were critical of us, saying, what’s, you know, they were
saying, you’ve already decided on your design, you’re not consulting properly.
(40:30) And, but of course we’d already launched the concept design, they joined after we’d launched
the concept design, so there was already a commitment to this, this design, it would have been veryvery difficult to kind of go back, um. It’s, it’s, something I kind of recall recently was the fact that they
joined after the launch of the concept design but one of their big criticism was, we weren’t listening to
them, and my goodness we did listen to them…
(40:50) … so we had decided, we had thought this would be a good tactile to use to define this, this
edge, plus there’s other things, we, um, CABE and the Royal College of Art, they had produced this
research which looked into how guide people, um, blind people use spaces, and they had, one of the
conclusions, which was interesting was, it was a young guy, wasn’t he, who did the research, he’d
found that blind people were confused about the number of tactile, um, tactile, tactiles that there were.
And he actually said, we, we could simplify them. It, one of the things I think he said was, um, we
could, these co-, they should be simplified to maybe two or three different tactiles. At the moment I
think there’s seven or eight.
(41:42) DB: Yeah, just, so, um, pause then again for a minute, cause… what was interesting, and I
think this is actually very important [talking about the time with Bill], is terribly important is the
Guide Dogs people who were objecting were almost without exception older people. They had already
been on a campaign in this country when we introduced dropped kerbs at crossing points. And the
dropped kerbs were there principally for people with buggies and wheelchair-users, people like me,
and they said well it didn’t take into account their needs, how would they know that the dropped kerb
91
was there, which is quite reasonable, um, and they took an injunction out effectively, Bill, against
dropped kerbs being introduced in this country until the matter was resolved.
BM: Yes, back in the early 1990’s.
DB: Oh, no, earlier than that.
BM: Late 1980’s.
DB: Yeah, 1980’s.
BM: You know, that’s right, cause I was at Hammersmith and I remember, cause it, yeah.
(42:48) DB: Yeah. So they were an older group, they were used to campaigning, and they were used to
using the law. Um, interestingly, they’d also got used to opting different tactile surfaces, and in a sense
as long as there was a tactile surface, that was good enough for them. Whereas younger blind people
have a much more relaxed view about this. Um, but what they were disdained by was the number of
tactile surfaces and the confusion that was causing, as Bill says about..
BM: Yes, and you, I remember, you used a very good expression, that a lot of the time in an area the
system is incomplete.
DB: It is, you go from one borough to another.
BM: And even in an area within the same borough, you don’t have a complete system, um, of
guidance for, for blind people.
43:39) DB: So what you’ve got really is tactile surfaces, something that came out of a lot of
negotiation and compromise many years ago, driven by highways people I have to say in many ways,
and was unsatisfactory, but we’d got used to it over the years. But if you’re again designing from fresh
would you do it that way, and the answer is no.
(44:04) BM: You, you have a tactile surface for instance for the edge of the, a platform, for a tram
stop. There is a different one for the edge if you go to, on the underground, for the edge of the
platform for the underground trains. There’s a different, there’s blister paving, there’s special tactiles
for the end of a cycle path.
DB: Yeah, it’s too much.
BM: So there’s about, I think there’s about seven or eight, maybe even more.
(44:26) And going back to Guide… One, and this is again part of the negotiations with them. What we
agreed with Guide Dogs, and Transport for London in fact, was to carry out some research, into, um,
into tactiles. And what would be an effective tactile to use, for an edge or kerb. And Transport, this
research had been started by Guide Dogs, which is good that they did that, but then Transport for
London continued funding this research, and it was a laboratory research. There’s a facility called
PAMELA…
DB: PAMELA, yeah.
BM: P-A-M-E-L-A, which is a laboratory facility, where people, where University College London
can test out street layouts.
[DB: asks us whether we know about PAMELA tests]
(45:25) BM: So what happened was, Transport for London, um, and we were obviously involved,
because Transport for London, there were other shared space schemes being developed, they were
very interested in, and having a tactile that could define, could help alert blind people that there was an
edge, you know, there was traffic hazard…
DB: And an agreement about the type of tactile that would satisfy most if not all parties, yeah.
(45:53) BM: So what they started off to do, was looking at different, a new tactile. So not only did we
already have seven or eight, but they looked at the possibility of another one. And so they came up
with a number of profiles, and they tested them…
(46:12) Now in the meantime, we were progressing more and more with Exhibition Road, you know,
we were getting the money, we were then getting rid of the one-way system around the station which
had to be done before we could do Exhibition Road itself, and we were getting quite close to, um,
92
having, starting the work on Exhibition Road itself, but we needed to know what tactile to use to
alert… you know, in the construction.
(46:40) So, I remember going to one of the meetings where they were discussing the results and I was
just saying, this is, actually we really need to speed this up, because so far, the best tactile that you’ve
got is the corduroy one. Which is the one already existed, and which has the message, “hazard,
proceed with caution”, and it’s the one I kind of wanted to use, you know, if they’ve, nothing else was
coming out as effective. Um, so, they speeded up the testing, and um, in the laboratory, this, um, the
corduroy did come out very well, and we decided that that is what we would, um, put in.
(47:25) Now, the report written by University College London, this is where it gets controversial. The
draft report that they wrote said this corduroy had the, performed the best, but they, in the draft, in the
summary of the draft they said, they said that they felt that we shouldn’t proceed with installing it until
further site-testing was carried out. Now, the reason they said that was because in case the paving was
bumpy alongside, and in case mud got into the grooves and it became ineffective. Now, we saw, in the
main report, I remember speaking to the guy who wrote the draft, and said look, this is really, isn’t
helpful, because you’re actually saying that the corduroy performed the best, and, you know, what you
should be saying in this draft, is it’s very important that, you know, um, that it’s kept clean. That you
don’t… it remains effective. That, and you lay it properly. And I can tell you, in Kensington and
Chelsea we certainly will wash the streets and everything.
DB: Yeah, yeah.
(48:34) BM: But they let it, they let it… we, a number of us went to these meetings where we
discussed the draft, and the Guide Dogs people leaked the draft report. So that went… that came…
what’s became public, and they were saying, see, it says, don’t proceed with this until you do further
testing.
DB: Yeah, yeah.
(48:54) BM: And that was used when they went to the judge to get an injunction on us installing this.
Now, in the end, what was decided, there was a compromise, that we would do site testing once we’d
laid a section of Exhibition Road, we would do site testing. And so, um, that’s what happened. The
first, the first section of Exhibition Road was laid, we put in the corduroy, and it, and, um, and there
was site testing of it. And it came out fine. It performed well, and so we’d proceeded with that, and
that was kind of…
DB: Well, that was very helpful.
BM: … kind of the end of the matter, really.
(49:33) DB: I’m gonna try a summary because we haven’t got much time left. Um, I think what
emerged from this, really, is some points I made here.
(49:44) That, by removing the kerb, I’m confident in saying that was reasonable, it’s because research
by Royal College of Art has demonstrated that building frontage was the key factor in guiding blind
people,
(50:10) …and we added to that by saying we would introduce, as Bill described, a safe zone. So
instead of saying it’s the building, and all the rest is the road, we said there would be the building line,
a safe zone, and then the road, all [] in one uninterrupted level. That safe zone had to be fit for
purpose, it’s very wide as you can see out there, because of all of these children, you need that width.
The idea was to encourage the children to walk away from the building line, so the people who did
need it could make use of it, doesn’t always work.
(50:42) We also had here reduced traffic speed, which is terribly important, so the speed [] is taken
down from 30..
BM: … to 20, so it’s a normal continental limit of 30 kilometers [].
(50:58) DB: We also had a numbers situation, because if you’ve got a single surface and you’re
expecting drivers and pedestrians to understand what they are going to do, the number of pedestrians
93
must be sufficiently dominant to enable that []. So if you get a scheme where there isn’t a sufficient
number of pedestrians, the chances are it will fail or people will be injured and so on. Um.
(51:25) And then there was another, final thing, which is to do with retrofitting, where Bill, there was
a degree of uncertainty about whether a crossing might be required further down, and the question is if
the crossing was necessary, or found to be necessary, somebody’s gotta raise the money, you got to
dig up the road, put in the wiring for the crossing points and so on. So correct me, Bill, if I’m wrong
on this, but trunking was built into the road at that point in anticipation of a crossing, so that you
wouldn’t have to dig up the surface of the road much, so you’ve got a retrofit, you’ve got a
reassurance there for the people who were worried about it.
(52:11) So the summary, you got a package of things here that would provide sufficient reassurance.
And that was convincing I think.
(52:27) Partly that, but also one other thing is, the number of people who would benefit from the
single surface far exceeded those who said they wouldn’t. In other words blind or partially sighted
people are quite few in number, whereas the number of wheelchair users, children with buggies,
people like me on sticks are substantial. So there was a proportionality argument that came into play.
(52:45) And I have to say that before this project, I was unable to walk the length of Exhibition Road,
I wouldn’t even try. Since it’s been installed I managed to walk not only all the way up, but all the
way back again! And I couldn’t otherwise have done it. So there were, is that helpful?
Eszter: Yes.
DB: And have we, before we come to that, have you got another question?
Eszter: Yes.
BM: [] I’ve just drawn out what, what you just described.
DB: Oh, okay.
(53:13) BM: So this is the old kerb line here and here [pointing at a sketch he just made]. That’s where
that corduroy, the corduroy is as well. So the traffic used, the traffic used to go northbound here and
southbound here, we pushed it all over to that side. So, so, and these are the, this is the lighting in the
middle of the road. So what we have is a safe zone, 4 metres, 4 metres, it’s the old pavement width,
also, pedestrians can walk here as well. But in this area, it’s not so safe. Because you’ve got some
people parking, and you’ve got the motorcycles or cycles you know, using this more. Um, like you
said. A lot of blind people use, the, the building edge as the orientation. So, that’s what’s called the
safe zone, the two-way traffic, the traffic has moved over to this side, so this is where most pedestrians
move, because the museums for the children are on this side of the road, so you’ve got huge numbers
compared to this side. So, um, we doubled, more than doubled the space for pedestrians along here. So
you can have that [hands over the sketch].
DB: And furthermore, Bill, you’ve got bus stops, there’re bus stops along here, so when the bus stops,
the traffic behind has to stop as well. So there’s a natural interruption. So the traffic provides
additional opportunities to people to cross.
BM: Yes. But in fact we get fewer traffic obstructions with this arrangement, than with the other one,
cause with the old arrangement you had North, South, and parking in the middle of the road. And so if
someone double parked, no one could get past. And it used to block the, block the traffic. And also,
when it was, on very crowded days, people used to walk up the road, not on the pavement, because it
was just too crowded. Now, if someone stops, it has no, you know, someone can drive past the bus. If,
or if someone’s delivering you can actually get past. And the coaches cause less disruption, because a
coach delivering children, it just pulls in, you know, there’s a space in between the [], the coaches can
pull in, children can get off, and and again, it doesn’t block the road. So, the traffic moves better, even
though there’s less space for traffic.
DB: Yes, yes. But interestingly the buses from abroad of course discharge the children into the road
not onto the pavement, so that’s another problem.
94
[discussion about e-mail address 55:40-55:48]
(55:49) Bartosz: We have some questions about, because, I mean, also, I understand this kind of, this
scheme, it’s like, rational, it solves a lot of problems, but when we read about this project and there
was this idea of the shared space and single surface, and we have some questions like who was, like,
the side that really argued for this, like, because…
Eszter: For the shared space.
Bartosz: … you worked, it seems like you worked, and you tried to improve, and making some
improvements on this, this paradigm, um, [] of the shared space. Why was it there, and…
(56:33) DB: Combination, no one single thing. It was a concept anyway. Um, and I think if I might
say, Bill, um..
BM: Oh, I know, there’s, there’s another thing. Ok, go on…
(56:46) DB: We were very convinced of its benefits. Bearing in mind that along Exhibition Road
there drive-ins to the various buildings, which meant not only a pavement, but dropped kerbs along
the, along the length of the road. So, we as access consultants, actually promoted the idea. We
supported it once we were convinced through the original audit. So that was important.
Eszter: You mean the single surface.
DB: The single surface. Yes, the single surface.
(57:13) BM: The other thing was, we, you know, we could have done this same arrangement, but, not
have a kerb on this side, but you could have had a kerb there. You know, that was, that was a
possibility.
(57:25) I think it was, there was a feeling that the single surface was more flexible. So, I mean during
the Olympics, the, um, yeah. During the Olympics a lot of Exhibition Road was closed to traffic apart
from the people who lived there, and so it suddenly became a nice, flat surface for other act… circus,
you know, acrobatics, and so…
DB: Yes.
(57:46) BM: ... you… and I think, you know, we had to be careful what we said to local people. A lot
of support from local people for the improvement. But one of the things local people were concerned
about was too much activity on the road, um…
(57:58) DB: And loss of parking.
BM: Yes. So we kept the parking for the residents, we lost the parking for visitors, they have to go
elsewhere, we put the price up, actually, and moved it, so, so you use price to control the amount of
parking. But the residents’ parking’s still there. But it’s only there as a short-term, well, relatively
short-term…
(58:17) DB: Other than to me.
BM: Well, you know we got blue-badge parking, that’s right, we got blue-badge parking, and that will
remain always. But the resident parking, there’s some space becoming available nearby, when there’s
a redevelopment, and the residents’ parking will be removed from Exhibition Road to this new space.
But there will still be the blue-badge.
(58:37) DB: So can I come back to your question, um, because, Bill has raised a very important point,
that under this set of things here [points at his notes]: safe zone, traffic speed, maybe even one-way,
not in this case, but that makes it safer still, numbers, retrofit, there’s multi-use. So, many regeneration
projects in this country, yours too, you may close, as Exhibition Road may close from time to time. A
village square may close. It will have a market there. It will have a party there, it will, whatever. To
have kerbs in those spaces is not ideal. It’s better if it’s all on one level. So that, that was part of the
reasoning behind it.
BM: Yes, yes.
DB: But keep going with your questions, cause I’ve got to go.
95
(59:23) Bartosz: Because we read like some works on the shared space as an idea of this, a kind of
order on the street, and… so… so like the original idea of a shared space doesn’t include this like,
regulations, [crossings?], lanes…
(59:44) BM: No, that’s where I think, if you look at the definition of shared space in this country, it’s
very much, it’s a spectrum. So you have, and this is, this…
(59:53) Kensington High Street was a scheme which is done, where a lot of the clutter was removed,
but it still got kerbs. And some people say it’s a kind of shared space scheme because it’s much, it
looks much simpler than it used to.
(1:00:05) Exhibition Road, is more on the pure shared space, because, um, you know, it’s a single
surface, but it’s still, it’s still quite clear where the traffic is meant to go and where you park. So it’s, it
is more ordered, but it is, um, it is simpler than before. There used to be a junction, if you, you
probably walked along it. Prince [] Road, the junction, where there’s a kind of circular paving, you
know it’s a junction with Prince [] Road and Exhibition Road, and the paving’s in a circle. Now, that
used to have traffic lights, and green, green signals for the pedestrians. That’s all gone, and it’s a bit
like Drachten now, where you’ve got the, when a driver comes to it, the driver will think, this is a, I
need to work, I need to use this like a roundabout. And that’s what they do. But there’s very little
signage to tell you that this is how you use it.
(1:00:57) And what, I think what shared space does, really, it’s importance of he… nudging, hinting. It
suggests what you should do. And the dri… and that’s I think one of the lessons I’ve really learned
about shared space is, you just, you do enough to get people to behave in the way that you want them
to, you know, you know, that, um, as I say, at that roundabout, at that, where the paving is in a circle,
the drivers use it like a roundabout, which is exactly right. But they give way to pedestrians, but
there’s no formal pedestrian crossing.
(1:01:30) But where the main road, the Cromwell Road crosses, the, you know, the really busy road,
where it crosses Exhibition Road, the traffic there is so heavy, that we have to have traffic signals
there. We couldn’t have that as a shared… you couldn’t have that without traffic signals. And that, and
ask driers to give way to pedestrians. You’ve got to, you’ve got to control it with lights. But if you, if
you think of where…
(1:02:00) …and the other thing is… with shared space, if… I think there’s a kind of a feeling that if
the traffic flow is more than a hundred vehicles an hour, pedestrians will not use… will not, say, stop
in the middle of that space and have a conversation. They will just, they will cross the road, will look
out for traffic. If the traffic flow is less than a hundred an hour, you know, pedestrians might just, you
know, stop in the middle and, and have a conversation, and then, if a car comes, they kind of give way.
(1:02:31) And in fact in Exhibition Road, if you go to the very Southern end, where the cafés are, the
traffic flows there are well under a hundred an hour, they’re about fifty. And if you look at the way
people use that, it’s much more… the pedestrians… there are kids skateboarding, and, but North of
Cornwell Road, the traffic is 6 or 7 hundred an hour, and there’s no way, um, you know, that a
pedestrian would just stop in the middle of this district, and have a conversation. But they’re quite
relaxed when they’re crossing the road, and a lot of drivers slow down…
DB: Just gotta pause, cause I’ve got to go. What other questions have you got that I might answer, or
am I done?
[chatter1:03:10 – 1:03:19]
(1:03:19) Eszter: I think I would just like to ask, um, in your opinion is this scheme, the outcome
actually of the whole process is more accessible than an actual, complete shared space would have
been, or not? Like, is it actually a better outcome?
(1:03:45) DB: [long pause] No. I think there is still anxiety about crossing the road, actually. I, on one
occasion… we have a program called In Touch, for blind people on the radio, and we had a very angry
blind person who said he could not cross this road. It’s more dangerous now than it ever was before.
96
So I offered to meet him there, this was with… can’t remember his name now, and, in fact, he took my
shoulder, as he’s blind, and I waited until the traffic stopped, and we walked across. And I said there
we are, you just crossed the road. He said ah, but there was no traffic. I said there was, but it actually
stopped for you. And that was the first time in his life that had happened and he was quite amazed,
actually.
(1:04:40) But in a way, I still don’t think that traffic behaves sufficiently well. They’re not sufficiently
familiar. And so today, there was a man with a trolley trying to cross the road, and the traffic’s still too
active. Now, Bill, if there were cameras there, I’ve seen people drive down here at 40. I think we
haven’t quite got used to this, to be really reliable, but it will come, that would be my opinion.
(1:05:09) BM: But, what your question was, if it was more shared, then the problems that you
mentioned might be worse.
DB: Well that’s my point. So I, oh I see what you mean.
(1:05:23) BM: So your question was if we had a more shared space, if we didn’t have this, that would
be very problematic.
DB: No, I wouldn’t, no. It has to have that. Thank you, Bill. It has to have that. I think it would be
terribly unfair to dispense with the disabled parking, what else would happen…I think there could be
an improvement if traffic was one-way rather then two-way, it would make life a lot easier.
BM: Oh, really?
DB: Oh yes.
BM: It often goes faster…
DB: No.
BM: to one-way.
DB: Put speed-bumps in or put cameras in.
BM: So what I think.
DB: See we don’t agree either.
BM: But I’m not gonna go to court!
(1:06:05) DB: No [all laugh]. And I think also, the very challenging thing is, what’s the accident
record? I don’t think, Bill, beyond somebody getting hit by a lorry by the station..
BM: But that was a drunk person…
DB: Oh, he was drunk. So maybe that was his fault.
(1:06:22) BM: There’s actually, if you go to the Kensington Chelsea, the Council website, they have
got… there’s a monitoring [] on Exhibition Road. As I understand it, accidents have gone down, but
there’s nothing… you can’t prove the statistical significance, you know, because you need an awful lot
of records before you can say that.
(1:06:36) But one thing I will, just going back to Daniel Moylan, this councillor, Daniel Moylan. He
used to say about shared space, he said as my mother always said, he says, you know, with cooking,
you can put salt in, but you can’t take salt out. When you’re cooking. So, like shared space, when you
do the scheme, you pit in the minimum you think the scheme, you know, you put in the minimum you
think will make it work, but you monitor once you completed the scheme.
(1:07:11) He said the scheme isn’t complete when you finished all the… you then monitor it, and if
it’s necessary to put more stuff in to make it safer, then you should. So that’s what the monitoring
program has been about, and there has been… one of the problem that’s been happening was traffic,
when they were coming along it’s a bound left turn to Exhibition Road from the road, but some traffic
was still turning into this bit [points at the pavement]. So they put bollards in, they put some bollards
in at the pedestrian crossing. You know, if someone does that, they hit the bollards, you know.
So…You were allowed to turn before, now they’re not allowed, you know, they have to make the
turn-in before.
97
(1:07:57) You know, so there’s, along here there’s some cellars underneath this safe zone, the roof is
weak of the cellars, so they have to make sure that cars don’t park to drop off… you know, sometimes
people stop to let someone out of the car, then they carry on to find a parking space. They don’t want
vans to go on to this weak surface, so, you know, again there are bollards. Further along we’ve got
trees so that helps define it.
(1:08:25) So that’s quite important, the idea of… with a shared space scheme you monitor it, to see
whether you need to modify it. One of the things we did do, when it was first put in we had a lot of
temporary cones to make it clear to the drivers, this is where… You drive along here, you know at
each end you’ve got traffic signals, so you’re already lined up correctly for the road. But by putting the
cones in they then know that this is where they should drive.
[DB asks about more questions
We ask about whether there were possibly other groups opposing the scheme]
(1:09:41) DB: No, I don’t think so. On the contrary. The wheelchair users were particularly very
supportive and respected the research that had been undertaken to see whether the corduroy paving
was a problem, people like me with walking impairments did the same, so the band of paving was
relatively narrow so you could have stepped over it if you chose to.
BM: Could have been narrower, but…
(1:10:09) Because there’s a tunnel underneath here, that drain is there, Bill, isn’t it, than that drain had
to remain. And it’s a long, continuous drain, and we decided it should be painted black, and I think
actually the blackness of that, as a line, is a very powerful supplement to the tactile surfaces. And in
other jobs, where we’ve adopted this, we have suggested that there should be a drainage line there,
with the black line, painted line. Because that really does make it work properly.
(1:10:53) BM: That reminds me, that was one other objection from Guide Dogs early on, they said the
criss-cross pattern was going to be confusing. And they based that on the British Library. If you go to
the British Library there’s a criss-cross pattern, but also lots of different levels, so you actually do trip
over. But what we did, when the road was closed, and the architects marked out with chalk the crisscross pattern before any work was done. It was an open day and the road was closed, and in fact the
Guide Dogs people came along, and in fact a lot of the blind people came along and some of the
partially sighted, and they said, oh, it’s not really confusing, we haven’t realised how big, sort of, these
squares were.
DB: And there’s a reason for that, which is when you look at the architect’s drawing, it’s on a long
roll, you could roll out the entire road on a big, long table. And of course you’re looking down with
this bird’s eye view on this diagonal pattern, and it looks very obvious. When you then get the [] and
you’re at eye level, the strength of that diagonal reduces considerably, it’s not misleading.
[1:12:14 – 1:13:15 DB: says goodbye, Chatter]
1:13:16 – 1:13:48 BM: Tells us about the website, about a report, site-testing of the corduroy, NVA?,
monitoring.]
(1:13:48) BM: I left 4 years ago, sort of, 4 years ago, because my jobs was to get the scheme designed,
get the money, and then the detailed design, but I didn’t do the construction, I’m not a construction
person. But I stayed long enough to see them laying down the granite and I said ok, this is it, I’m
leaving on a high.
(1:14:12) But the biggest achievement for me, funny enough the biggest achievement was getting rid
of the one-way system around the station. That was a terrible.. it was a scheme put in in 1964 and it
was really-really bad, and it was so complicated, and everyone disliked it. And we decided, when we
went to public consultation in 2005, we got two-thirds of the residents supporting what we do, and
one-third said, you know, typical, you know, I’m sure you get it in your country as well, you know, a
waste of public money, it should be better spent, but, they said if you’re going to do anything, just get
rid of the terrible one-way system. So we decided to extend the project, to include the whole… we
98
were originally just going to do the one-way system north of the station, but we decided to do to the
west and the south of the station as well, and so, that all became part of Exhibition Road, and we did
that first, and the residents were so pleased with that.
(1:15:12) And then they, they kind of, all this stuff about the single surface, I mean, another thing we
benefitted from, a lot of the residents are foreign, and it were the foreigners who really supported it as
well, the English were more conservative, and the foreigners were sort of much more…
(1:15:26) You know, they said, there was a Swiss man, I remember, he said, and there was an Indian
man, and this Indian man said, you know, it will be just like home, you know. And I had to tell him:
don’t tell that to your neighbours, you know, cause he was thinking this complete shared space.
(1:15:40) And there was this Swiss person, and he said, you know, this is very much like this scheme
in the East of Switzerland, so you know, it was quite good cause we could say this to people. And
these residents also talked to other residents, and they, you know, we had a good, it was very nice
actually.
(1:16:05) But as I say be careful about the definition of shared space, you know, I think when you read
a lot, when you read about people who support shared space sometimes they are very pure about it.
And really, when you look at a lot, and you look at the schemes that Hans Monderman did, and
there’re very few where there’s complete freedom. You know. In Drachten you sort of see this
junction with a roundabout. On the approach to it there’s a low, there is a low kerb, you know, and
then you got the roundabout itself, but I think what it is..
(1:16:38) I think, what… for me what come out of it is: what is a minimum you can do to make people
behave in a good way. It’s interesting what David says about the speeds, you know, because when I
see it, often the traffic’s moving quite slowly, there’s a twenty-mile-an-hour limit, maybe they need to
have some cameras for a period, you know, just to catch a few people.
99
100
Appendix C
E-mail correspondence with various actors
E-mail correspondence between the project team and Bill Mount
From: Eszter Juhasz-Nagy [mailto:ejuhas13@student.aau.dk]
Sent: 06 May 2014 09:05
To: bill.mount49@gmail.com
Subject: questions in relation to the Exhibition Road project
Dear Bill,
We are the urban planning students you have met on the 25th of April at the National History
Museum together with David Bonnett.
Thank you very much for your time and the interview, it was very helpful. It is really great that
David thought about inviting you along, you were such a great source of information!
We have some additional questions we would like to ask you about the process.
What was the purpose of the Delivery Board and who set it up?
In the interview you have mentioned that there was tension between you and Cllr. Daniel Moylan
in relation to the implementation of a shared space scheme. You also referred to the architects in
relation to this, but it is not entirely clear on which side the architects stood in this conflict. Were
they on the side of a radical shared space or not?
You mentioned the ten objectives that the projects set out to accomplish, could you list them? You
have named some of them, but not all.
How was the membership for the Access Group originally decided in 2004? Were the members
invited or was anyone free to join?
In your opinion, did Exhibition Road influence the perception of shared spaces in England, and if
so, in what way?
Thank you again for your help.
Best regards,
Eszter Juhasz-Nagy
Egle Rasimaviciute
Bartosz Matuszewski
101
From: bill [mailto:bill.mount49@googlemail.com]
Sent: 07 May 2014 10:44
To: Eszter Juhasz-Nagy
Subject: RE: questions in relation to the Exhibition Road project
Dear Eszter, Egle and Bartosz,
I’m having to go out again soon so this message replies to a couple of your questions, the rest of the
reply will follow as soon as possible:
What was the purpose of the Delivery Board and who set it up? When the Exhibition Road
Project first began a ‘Client Board’ was set up to oversee the appointment of the ‘lead designers’ for
the scheme and its subsequent development. Members of the Board were drawn mainly from the two
councils, the Mayor of London’s organisation and the South Kensington Institutions; it was chaired by
the Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council (Merrick Cockell) which was the ‘Client’ for the
project. Daniel Moylan, the Deputy Leader of the Council was also on the Board and he was closely
involved in the development of the proposals. I reported on this work to the Board, myself heading up
an ‘Infrastructure Group’ which developed the detailed proposals which would subsequently be
discussed at the Board. Once the final design had been agreed and sufficient funding for the project
had been agreed to allow construction to begin, the name of the ‘Client Board’ was changed to the
‘Delivery Board’ and some changes made to its membership to reflect its changed role.
The rest is to follow – I probably won’t be able to do this until Friday I’m afraid
With best wishes
Bill
102
From: bill [mailto:bill.mount49@googlemail.com]
Sent: 11 May 2014 17:34
To: 'bill'; Eszter Juhasz-Nagy
Subject: RE: questions in relation to the Exhibition Road project
Dear Eszter, Egle and Bartosz,
Continuing my reply to your questions, in respect of objectives we stated in the ‘Competition Brief’
for the selection of the ‘lead designers’ for the Exhibition Road Project “that the design must
ultimately:
Reflect the fact that South Kensington is looking to the future, setting new standards in urban
design. It must be a modern classic – a space for a new century.
Reinforce the distinctive character of South Kensington as a centre of cultural and educational
activity in London and an area of metropolitan, national and international significance, contributing to
the visitor based sector of London’s economy.
Preserve and improve amenity and quality of life for those living in the largely residential
surrounding area.
Further the visitor development strategies of the area’s leading institutions to attract a more
diverse audience to South Kensington;
Integrate vehicular and foot traffic effectively, delivering an attractive pedestrian environment
while preserving the road’s important function as a vital transport link serving people from the whole
surrounding area.
Follow the principles of ‘inclusive design’ in ensuring that the route at both street level and
underground will meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion for all members of the
community, regardless of disability, age or sex.
Meet the growth in demand and changes in visitors’ attitudes that have been occurring as a
result of the recent reintroduction of free admission, and which are likely to continue as a result of the
museums’ expansion plans, and address the implications for the amenity of residents, visitors and
workers.
Encourage better use of the South Kensington pedestrian tunnel for affording access to and
circulation within the precinct and address the tunnel’s current state of disrepair.
Take account of and, where advantageous, integrate with other proposed developments,
foremost of which is the proposed redevelopment of South Kensington Station by Stanhopes plc,
designed by Terry Farrell and Partners.
Ensure good access to bus services for people using South Kensington Station and visiting
Exhibition Road and the surrounding area.
Provide a platform for public art to animate and enrich the street scene.
Address the servicing needs of the institutions.
Provide for coach parking, whether ‘on’ or ‘off’ the South Kensington site.
Safeguard residents’ parking (within the area there should be no overall loss of residents’
parking).
Deliver unity of design throughout the length of Exhibition Road.
I’m taking a break now and will continue later.
Bill
103
From: bill [mailto:bill.mount49@googlemail.com]
Sent: 11 May 2014 18:10
To: Eszter Juhasz-Nagy
Subject: RE: questions in relation to the Exhibition Road project
Hi again!
The question relating to whether the architects were on the side of the radical shared space or not? The
design process involved me and others working closely with the architects to develop the concept
design for the scheme. There was a desire from Daniel Moylan, the politician leading the project, for a
design which was as stripped back/simple as possible. The tension I referred to had a lot to do with his
personality (he had a domineering manner which intimidated many people) and his way of working
with professionals, which was to push for extreme solutions, expecting us to argue with him as to why
some things were not possible. So I did this using arguments I developed with other professionals
working on the project, including the architects who, like me, were in favour of a radical scheme but
which had to be workable. I guess you have to remember that we were developing this scheme in a bit
of a vacuum as other ‘shared space’ schemes, notably in the Netherlands, were nothing like the size of
the Exhibition Road Project – so a lot of discussions took place. Anyway, I believe the process worked
well and I am on speaking terms with Daniel Moylan. In fact, in a speech he gave at the opening of the
scheme he referred to me as “the soul at the heart of the project”!
The question relating to membership of the ‘Access Group”. The Council had an ‘Access Officer” and
she suggested representatives of a number of local and national disability groups. Once the Group had
been set up suggestions were made by some of its members for other representatives to join and these
were agreed.
The question relating to whether Exhibition Road changed the perception of ‘shared space’ in England
and, if so, in what ways? I need to think about this further but my first thoughts are that it has done. I
think it has raised the quality of the debate about shared space – it is not just a question of having a
completely stripped back street, some hints are needed to show how the space should be used – the
notion of the ‘safe zone’ was used and has proved successful. The scheme also showed that it is not
necessary to have a lot of signage and so on to show how a space should be used.
That’s it for now, I hope you are all well
Bill
104
E-mail correspondence between the Planning Department at the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea and the project team
From: Eszter Juhasz-Nagy [mailto:ejuhas13@student.aau.dk]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 11:00 AM GMT Standard Time
To: Siddiqi, Mahmood: TTS-TransHigh
Subject: RE: Exhibition Road
Dear Mahmod,
Thank you very much for your answers, they were very illuminating.
We have a follow-up question, however.
We understand now that the single surface concept was part of the design from the very beginning. In
this case, could you explain to us what happened design-wise from 2006, when the concept design was
reviewed by David Bonnett, and April 2009, when the detailed design options were presented?
We understand that this is probably a complex question, but we don’t need much detail. We would just
like to understand this part of the process better, since it is a gap in our timeline.
Thank you for your help again,
Best regards,
Eszter Juhasz-Nagy, Egle Rasimaviciute, Bartosz Matuszewski
105
From: Mahmood.Siddiqi@rbkc.gov.uk [Mahmood.Siddiqi@rbkc.gov.uk]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 6:59 PM
To: Eszter Juhasz-Nagy
Subject: Re: Exhibition Road
Dear Eszter
The short answer is 'very little happened'. In 2009 the Mayor of London agreed to contribute to the
project enabling sufficient funding to be available. This is what was needed to get the scheme started
Mahmood Siddiqi
Bi-borough Director for Transport and Highways
Telephone: 020 7361 3589
************************************************************
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
This e-mail may contain information which is confidential,
legally privileged and/or copyright protected.
This e-mail is intended for the addressee only.
If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and
delete the material from your computer.
************************************************************
106