Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

We need more transport infrastructure and fewer High Lines

  • 2 Comments

To revive our towns and cities we need more transport infrastructure and fewer High Lines, says Rory Olcayto

Here’s an idea for mayors all over the world: if you discover an abandoned railway in the centre of your city, whose transport infrastructure is already straining, don’t transform it into an urban strip farm or High Line-style hipster park. No, no no - try this instead: revive its fortunes by rebuilding … a railway.

But this really is the situation facing Paris and its mayor, Anne Hidalgo. She wants to regenerate the Petite Ceinture (‘little belt’), an abandoned railway built more than 150 years ago in the city centre, into a cultural hub with cinemas and aquariums.

You can understand why: the land is central and worth a bomb. Furthermore, creative culture hubs, leisure quarters, places with smoothie cafés, pop-up burger bars and fixie bike accessory shops are lauded as the route to magicking dereliction into gold.

And then, of course, there is the High Line.

Highline

In recent years The High Line has become the template for city makers looking to turn failing post-industrial quarters into sparkling leisure and cultural hotspots. It has been massively successful, drawing 5 million visitors a year to the Meatpacking District of New York. And, less than a fortnight ago, the third and final segment - dubbed the Rail Yards phase - opened to the public following a $35 million overhaul.

Yet the most important lesson to learn from the High Line is that it’s not a sustainable template. When I visited in 2012, I was bowled over by the sheer excitement this project brings to how we experience the city. It’s comic book stuff: the elevated views, the close-up views of rooftop water tanks, the squeezing-between-buildings thrill you get as you wander along the boardwalk-style promenade - it’s all very Batman (or Daredevil, if Marvel’s more your bag).

But I felt sad, too, when I thought what this place used to be: a busy freight service, employing hundreds of people in transport, manufacturing, retail and any number of other trades linked to freight. If New York continues down this route, so that all of its industrial infrastructure is refashioned as a cultural draw, what kind of city will be left to live in - or even visit?

A mixed use of activities makes a place. And by mixed use I don’t mean housing with a Costa coffee unit on the ground floor. If everything we build in our cities now is either speculative residences (for overseas investment) alongside cultural quarters and leisure complexes, the idea of place begins to dilute.

Yet many architects seemed hooked on culture as the only way to make a place, perhaps not realising such an approach actually stifles creativity in the places it’s meant to invigorate. Cultural regeneration, perversely, relocates real creativity well away from the district being transformed. New York’s Meatpacking District is a case in point: no one would argue today that it serves as the city’s ideas factory.

Meanwhile, in Paris, L’Association Sauvegarde Petite Ceinture has the best idea for the city’s derelict railway. It is campaigning to keep the track as one line so it can be revived as a public transport route to relieve the city’s overburdened metro system, stating on its website: ‘Our association considers that urban ecology doesn’t limit itself to planting trees, but must consider a broader approach to the city’s functions.’

This is so obvious it’s hard to argue with: sustainable place-making doesn’t mean trees, pop-ups and salted caramel ice-cream parlours. It means infrastructure and industry - and fewer High Lines. Not very sexy, it’s true. But then urban design, or town planning as it used to be called, isn’t meant to be.

rory.olcayto@emap.com Twitter: @roryolcayto

  • 2 Comments

Readers' comments (2)

  • The Jubilee Bridge, connecting Battersea with Fulham new train station at Imperial Wharf, has planning consent, is compliant with the London Plan, it is part of the saved policies of both LB Hammersmith & Fulham and Wandsworth councils and is hugely supported locally by both the public and members of parliament.

    The proposals contribution to London both economically and in connectivity terms is highlighted in LB Wandsworth independent report which also notes a TfL cost:benfet ratio of 2.1:1; way above the pass mark for capital grant funding.

    This proposal is for a public bridge, it is a unique design and will hugely benefit the health and the environment of the area as outlined in the independent report. There are predicted to be at least 1.2 million uses a year and the GLA state ‘the design of the bridge is supported and represents and high standard of architecture in line with London Plan policy 7.6.’ on the report at the following link. http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/diamond_jubilee_footbridge_report.pdf

    However, when asked Michele Dix at TfL stated 'I can confirm TfL does not hold a budget for these purposes'. So we enquired as to how then £60m of public money was assigned to the Garden Bridge, the response was: ' The case for this contribution has been made on the back of the unique design of the bridge and public space and the potential benefits this will bring to London in terms of connectivity and economic development.'

    We pointed out that the Diamond Jubilee Bridge fits all of these criteria, already has planning consent and is around 1 tenth of the cost, and TfL replied by saying we should seek funding from local business in the area.

    There are conclusions to be drawn from this but we will let you draw you own.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thank you Rory for a calm, sane and unglamorously valid comment that reinforces the folly of the Garden Bridge and the enduring importance of infrastructure to the daily lives of people, especially those living and working in cities. If true, the figure published of £175m for a new pedestrian crossing of the River Thames is staggering and the question of value for money is inescapable, particularly if public funds are involved. Whilst investment in improved public transport links across the river is to be applauded, this figure is around seven times that of the London Millennium Bridge and, in purely transport terms, there is much better value to be gained in supporting multiple upgraded and new river crossings in a variety of locations, including the footbridge proposed between Pimlico and Nine Elms (estimated by TfL to cost £40m) and the Gallions Reach bridge. True, infrastructure in the form of bridges, railways, tram lines and cycle routes may not be as sexy as trees, pop-ups and ice cream stalls but it will still be there, more valuable than ever, in a hundred years' time.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

AJ Jobs