The crossroads plan for Sloane Square
involves driving a four-lane road through the middle of the Square and
the creation of two pedestrianised spaces: a large one outside Sloane
Square underground station, and a smaller one outside Peter Jones.
The whole area would be paved from shop front to shop front, and in
most of the Square there would be no kerbs to differentiate pavement
and road areas. Spouting water jets and granite water plinths form an
integral part of the design with the purpose of inducing a
‘playful atmosphere’.
Approximately ten of the existing mature trees in the Square would be
cut down. A similar number would be replanted at random in the
pedestrianised areas. The war memorial cross would be repositioned
outside the Hugo Boss shop; the fountain would be placed in a corner of
the smaller pedestrianised square by Peter Jones.
Traffic lights would control all movements of traffic within the area.
New signals would be installed at the entrance of Cliveden Place,
Sloane Street and Symons Street. Two further sets of traffic lights
would be installed in the centre of ‘Sloane Cross’. There
would be no crossing between the middle of the two pedestrianised
spaces.
Design
Controversy over RBK&C’s
crossroads plan for Sloane Square has arisen partly because the
protagonists of a radical, modernist reinterpretation of the Square
have rearranged the facts to suit their case. The Council’s
starting point for the 2005 consultation was (a) the Square’s
current design has outlived its purpose, (b) vehicles predominate over
people, and (c) it needs to be re-established as a pleasant and safer
place.
In fact, there have been very few accidents over the years because the
gyratory (ie, roundabout) layout forces traffic to slow down as it
enters the Square. There is little evidence that pedestrians find the
Square difficult to use: the pavements on the south side, where most
pedestrians walk, are broad and could be radically improved by removing
clutter. The current layout successfully disguises the Square’s
role as a major traffic hub, and the forthcoming extension of the
congestion charge will reduce traffic and associated bottlenecks at no
additional cost to the ratepayer.
When the Square was overhauled in the 1930’s, five different
designs were considered. The Council of the day wanted a symmetrical
central island in order to create a dignified setting. Subsequently,
the island was chosen as the location for the war memorial: partly
because the underground station had taken a direct hit in World War II,
with considerable loss of life. The line of trees was added around the
central island to emphasise the approach to the memorial. The site of
the graceful, Grade 2 listed Venus fountain by Gilbert Ledward was
carefully chosen in the centre of the Square so that its outline could
be back-lit against the sky from the northern and southern approaches.
The current Council gave the public no choice about the architectural
style to be used in their plan for remodelling the Square. Instead,
they chose a leading modernist architect, Stanton Williams, to
interpret their ideas. The resulting design suffers partly because the
Council set Stanton Williams incompatible objectives, for example
combining the site for the war memorial with a continental, café
style, piazza. The problems with the plan are detailed below.
Design Flaws
The crossroads design might bring two
benefits: pedestrians would not have to cross a road to reach the
station, and the Royal Court Theatre would have a large public space
outside its front entrance. Neither of these arguments is sufficient to
justify destroying a major London landmark and turning it into a
traffic junction. There is no history of road accidents in front of the
tube station, and there are few difficulties in reaching it. Most
successful theatres in London do not have a piazza in front of them.
Furthermore, there are very real problems with the proposal which argue
strongly against the Council’s plan.
1. Bulldozes Beautiful Square
The Council’s plan would destroy a
lovely London square and turn it into a road junction studded with
traffic lights. It would drive a four-lane highway through the heart of
the Square and fill it with traffic. Lines of vehicles, rather than the
lovely, tree-fringed Venus fountain, would dominate the view from every
approach to the Square. The four-lane road would also create a great
divide between Chelsea and Belgravia instead of the unified and
unifying space that exists today. The sense of division would be
reinforced by the absence of any central crossing between the two
pedestrian spaces.
2. Design Out of Sympathy with Surroundings
The crossroads design is entirely
incompatible with the surrounding area. Chelsea and Belgravia are full
of period architecture with beautiful buildings grouped around railed
garden squares. The setting is small scale; the atmosphere traditional.
The current layout, with its tree-filled central island, harmonises
with its surroundings and creates a memorable gateway to the
surrounding streets.
The crossroads design would create a vast, paved space like a parade
ground across the whole of the Square, more in keeping with a
utilitarian barracks than period urban architecture. It is full of
bizarre and quirky features, such as raised granite water plinths with
running water, and banal spouting water jets which are meant to create
the ‘playful’ atmosphere. The Square would look relatively
treeless: although the Council have said they will replace the ten
trees that must be cut down, these would be spread over too large an
area. The war memorial would have a central position in the larger
piazza but would lose all dignity in its setting next to the Hugo Boss
shop. The fountain would be crammed into a corner next to Peter Jones:
the clarity of its beautiful outline would be lost, and its place at
the heart of the Square destroyed.
3. Difficult for Pedestrians to Use
Proponents of the crossroads argue that it
will improve the pedestrian experience of the Square; but this is not
true either. The Council is engaged in one of the biggest town planning
gambles since the motor car was invented: it plans to commingle
pedestrians and traffic, by eliminating pavement kerbs and laying a
unified pavement and road surface. The Department for Transport has not
endorsed this plan, and RBK&C’s application for funding was
turned down when it tried to implement the same type of scheme in
Exhibition Road. The lack of pavement kerbs will make the Square a
difficult experience for the blind, the partially sighted, the elderly,
mothers with young children, and schoolchildren, many of whom use the
Square to reach schools in surrounding streets.
A critical weakness in the crossroads plan is the lack of a crossing in
the middle of the crossroads. Pedestrians, including school children,
will be tempted to cross the four lane road at its central point
between the two pedestrian areas, running considerable risks by doing
so.
4. Threat To Public Safety
Too little thought has been given to the
potential threat to public safety from a large pedestrianised area in
front of the underground station. It risks importing the problems of
Leicester Square, where anti-social behaviour has already increased
public disquiet and insecurity, on to the doorsteps of Belgravia and
Chelsea. The proposed pedestrianised spaces could become rubbish-filled
haunts of drunks and down-and-outs, especially as police community
officers are not on duty after 10pm. Anti-social behaviour has already
closed the lobbies of both Barclays and HSBC banks in the Square, and
the homeless target local churches as places to sleep.
Chelsea and Belgravia have a relatively good public safety record. But
there have been several disturbing incidents in or near the Square in
the last two years. The ram-raiding of Tiffany’s left one
criminal dead, and others injured, on our streets. There has been an
armed hold-up at the Lloyds Bank branch for the first time in its
history. Recently, employees of Fenn Wright and Manson, just off the
Square, were threatened with knives as they opened their premises.
Urban design should put the safety of citizens at the top of its
agenda: creating a large, unpoliced piazza in front of the underground
station, where pickpockets, muggers and aggressive beggars could easily
mingle with the crowd, is not the way to do so.
5. Waste of Ratepayers’ Money
There is no justification for the
crossroads scheme in terms of traffic management. The gyratory layout
works well in most traffic conditions. It will work even better after
19 February 2007 when the congestion charging zone is extended and
traffic levels drop in Chelsea and Belgravia.
The cost of the crossroads scheme is £6 million at the last
estimate. The fact that half the cost would be met by Transport for
London gives no comfort – it is again the ratepayers who would
have to foot the bill, along with the bill for the Olympics. Too little
attention is being paid to whether ratepayers can afford grandiose
schemes like the crossroads, which seem to be designed more for the
glorification of politicians who regard themselves as latter-day Baron
Haussmanns than to solve any real need. Many residents in Chelsea, and
London generally, are elderly and on fixed pensions. They are
increasingly without advocates in Ken Livingstone’s London.
RBK&C should be thinking of them, rather than joining the
‘modernization at all costs’ camp.
6. Threat to Shopkeepers
Sloane Square has been through a period of
considerable upheaval for more than five years because of the
refurbishment of the Royal Court, the old General Trading Company
building, Peter Jones, the Duke of York Square, the Hugo Boss
buildings, other properties and, more recently, the Sloane Square
hotel. The extension of the congestion charge poses serious challenges
to the many small shopkeepers in Chelsea and Belgravia, though it is
these very shops which contribute so much to the area’s unique
character. The 18-month programme for demolishing the current Square,
and building the new crossroads, could drive many of them out of
business.
The Council’s Crossroads Plan would
have a severe impact on many roads in Chelsea and Belgravia. The impact
would be particularly devastating in Cadogan Gardens where traffic is
forecast to quadruple in some sections in the morning peak, and to
increase more than eightfold in the evening peak.
The Council have been late to publish the Chelsea figures. They have
also refused to include them in the consultation document, arguing that
the consultation is a choice between two designs and has nothing to do
with traffic flow. We strongly disagree: the Crossroads Plan makes
major alterations in traffic flow whereas the Renovation Scheme is
entirely benign. The public has a right to know the way their lives
would be affected before a major consultation takes place.
Worst Affected Streets
The roads worst affected by the Crossroads Plan are shown in the attached pdf file.Click here for file.
The Council has suggested that they may close Symons Street to traffic
altogether if the congestion in Cadogan Gardens becomes too great.
However, this does little to improve the problem because their figures
show that traffic there in the morning would increase by 324% instead
of 327%! It also has a negative impact on other routes.
Changes Made to Road System By Crossroads Scheme
The reason the crossroads plan has such a
severe impact is because it makes important changes to vehicle and
pedestrian movements in Sloane Square:
the entrance to Holbein Place from the Square is closed;
Symons Street, behind Peter Jones, is reversed to lead away from and not into the Square;
entry to Symons Street from Sloane Street and Cliveden Place is banned;
entry to Sloane Street from Cliveden Place is banned;
the bus stop on the south side of the Square, near the station, is moved to the King’s Road;
the bus stand outside the Royal Court is moved;
the taxi rank is moved to Holbein Place;
all movements in and out of the square are controlled by traffic lights;
pedestrian crossings are controlled on all points in the Square.
Diversion of Traffic
Curtailing
exits and entrances to the Square and reversing existing roads can have
only one impact: the traffic has to go elsewhere.
The closure of Holbein Place will cause its 400 vehicles an hour to go
down either Lower Sloane Street, which is the most congested road in
the current layout, or through Belgravia.
Closing the Symons Street exit to the Square will mean that the 450
vehicles an hour using this route will use Cadogan Gardens instead
– either out through the awkward junction at Trotters with the
King’s Road, or on to Sloane Street, where they will be forced to
execute a difficult right turn, slowing the northbound traffic.
Vehicles which currently come through Sloane Square from Cliveden Place
and turn right up Sloane Street will have to make their way north from
points farther east, through Belgravia.
There will be considerable inconvenience to users of taxis, and to
residents dropping off or collecting passengers at the station: they
will have to make their way to Holbein Place, through either Belgravia
or Sloane Gardens. Passengers coming out of the station will no longer
have the bus stop in front of them to make a smooth change from one
form of transport to another.
Traffic Queues and Pollution
The crossroads plan requires the
imposition of five additional sets of traffic lights in Sloane Square
– not only at the junctions of Cliveden Place, Sloane Street and
Symons Street with the Square, but in both directions at the centre of
the crossroads. The Council are also suggesting that traffic lights may
have to be installed at the intersection of Cadogan Gardens and the
King’s Road, and at the intersection of Cadogan Square, Cadogan
Street and Cadogan Gardens. This will mean loss of trees and parking
spaces if they go ahead, which seems entirely likely given forecast
flows.
Save Sloane Square believes that multiple
sets of traffic lights will cause traffic queues where little
congestion exists now. Far from being an environmental improvement, the
crossroads plan will exacerbate pollution, especially in surrounding
residential streets which take the full impact of traffic reassignment.
Traffic Modelling
RBK&C claim their rigorous traffic
modelling shows that the crossroads will perform better than the
gyratory system. Examination of their pre-2005 consultation modelling
shows, however, that far from being robust, there were multiple
problems with their analysis:
it used out-of–date data from 2003;
the data was chosen to represent the all-round worse case for the current layout;
there is no agreement between the 2003 figures and later traffic counts;
the queue data for the gyratory cannot be verified by observation;
the crossroads data did not include comprehensive figures for reassigned traffic.
Their more recent modelling, to take
account of the impact of the crossroads on the wider area of Belgravia
and Chelsea, also has flaws. In order to disguise the full impact of
the crossroads scheme, they have simultaneously modelled both the
expected cut in traffic from the congestion charge and the change in
traffic flows caused by the scheme.
Figures released for Belgravia before
Christmas show falls in traffic on some roads which mirror exactly the
fall in traffic expected solely from the congestion charge. Yet
RBK&C have released the figures under the banner ‘Sloane
Square Environmental Improvement Scheme’. It is hard to see how
parts of Chelsea could experience an environmental improvement when the
impact on its streets would be so great.
** ** ** ** **
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Original
Website design by: Andy
Berry. from 2005 - October 2006 Vic Gerhardi
from November
2006 Hazel Smith, Jill Hoyle & Vic Gerhardi.
