Po
ositive
ely Influ
uencing
th
he Futu
ure of
mer Bo
Midsum
M
ouleva
ard
Ea
ast to 2026.
2
A rreport on the Miidsumm
mer Boule
evard Ea
ast stakkeholderr
wo
orkshop - 7th, 8th
h and 10
0th Febru
uary 201
14.
Report on the Midsummer Boulevard East Stakeholder Design
Workshops – 7th, 8th and 10th February 2014.
Executive Summary.
This executive summary reflects a focused and widely supported set of
outcomes from the workshops held on the 7th, 8th and 10th February 2014.
The workshop was attended by 87 participants with diverse
views and objectives for the development of Midsummer Boulevard East yet
the results reflect a high degree of commonality and achieved very high levels
of support.
The summary results of the workshop are listed below – details are given in
the main text:

the specification of what makes a “good” place was agreed
through the identification of 20 design and place qualities;

15 items of concern identified common to several stakeholder
perspectives;

the identification of the 20 strengths, 26 weaknesses and 28
opportunities that the development of MBE needs to address;

25 barriers that have to be overcome to ensure that the MBE can
be considered as a good place by 2026 were clearly identified;

8 initial proposal plans produced that contained 34 specific
emerging ideas and led to the formulation of 18 draft design
instructions to be addressed by a technical team;

The production by a technical team of a first draft composite
package of proposals on plan, containing 10 key ideas;

High levels of support for the first draft composite package;

8 refined proposal plans containing 35 additional refinements to
be addressed by a technical team;
1

The production by a technical team of a second draft composite
package of proposals on plan, containing 12 key ideas;

Very high levels of support across the workshop for the second
composite package;

The listing of 65 comments as suggested refinements to the
second composite package that would increase the level of
support of the package.

The generation of 12 draft refined aspirations based on the
suggested refinements to the second composite package as the
basis of an outline brief for the development of the Midsummer
Boulevard of 2026.
2
Report Contents:
Executive summary.
Page 1
Purpose of the report.
Page 5
Structure of the report.
Page 6
Workshop participant’s details, aims, structure and format.
Page 7
Day 1: Friday 7th February – Developing initial principles and proposals.
Page 9
Day 2: Saturday 8th February – Refining the principles and proposals.
Page 32
th
Day 3: Monday 10 February – Finalising principles, proposals & actions. Page 50
Concluding comments and recommendations.
Page 65
Appendices.
Page 66
List of Tables:
Table 1.0 Participant’s details.
Page 8
Table 2.0 Specification of the qualities that make a “good” place.
Page 10
Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspectives.
Page 13
Table 4.0 Composite SWOB analyses – STRENGTHS.
Page 17
Table 5.0 Composite SWOB analyses – WEAKNESSES.
Page 18
Table 6.0 Composite SWOB analyses – OPPORTUNITIESS.
Page 20
Table 7.0 Composite SWOB analyses – BARRIERS.
Page 21
th
Table 8.0 Technical Team Instructions from 7 February sessions.
Page 27
Table 9.0 Emerging ideas extracted from the initial proposal plans.
Page 29
Table 10.0 Other emerging issues from 7th February.
Page 31
Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan
and package – 8th Feb.
Page 38
Table 12.0 Additional refinements to the original proposals
- 8th February.
Page 48
Table 13.0 Additional refinements and specific comments on the second composite
package - 10th February.
Page 60
List of plans & diagrams:
Figure 1.0 Group 1 first proposals diagram – 7th February.
Page 23
th
Page 23
th
Figure 3.0 Group 3 first proposals diagram – 7 February.
Page 24
Figure 4.0 Group 4 first proposals diagram – 7th February.
Page 24
Figure 5.0 Group 5 first proposals diagram – 7th February.
Page 25
Figure 2.0 Group 2 first proposals diagram – 7 February.
th
Page 25
th
Page 26
Figure 6.0 Group 6 first proposals diagram – 7 February.
Figure 7.0 Group 7 first proposals diagram – 7 February.
3
Figure 8.0 Group 8 first proposals diagram – 7th February.
Page 26
Figure 9.0 First composite plan – Midsummer Boulevard
– synthesised and conceptualised.
Page 34
th
Figure 10.0 Group 1 revised proposals plan – 8 February.
Page 43
Figure 11.0 Group 2 revised proposals plan – 8th February.
Page 44
Figure 12.0 Group 3 revised proposals plan – 8th February.
Page 44
th
Page 45
th
Figure 14.0 Group 5 revised proposals plan – 8 February.
Page 45
Figure 15.0 Group 6 revised proposals plan – 8th February.
Page 46
Figure 16.0 Group 7 revised proposals plan – 8th February.
Page 46
Figure 13.0 Group 4 revised proposals plan – 8 February.
th
Figure 17.0 Group 8 revised proposals plan – 8 February.
Page 47
Figure 18.0 Second composite plan for Midsummer Boulevard
– a refined package of proposals .
Page 53
th
Page 56
th
Figure 20.0 Group 2 additional proposals plan – 10 February.
Page 56
Figure 21.0 Group 3 additional proposals plan – 10th February.
Page 57
Figure 22.0 Group 4 additional proposals plan – 10th February.
Page 58
Figure 19.0 Group 1 additional proposals plan – 10 February.
th
Page 58
th
Figure 24.0 Group 6 additional proposals plan – 10 February.
Page 58
Figure 25.0 Group 7 additional proposals plan – 10th February.
Page 59
Figure 26.0 Group 8 additional proposals plan – 10th February.
Page 59
Figure 23.0 Group 5 additional proposals plan – 10 February.
4
Purpose of the report:
The purpose of this document is to present the results of the collaborative
workshops held on 7th, 8th and 10th February 2014.
The purpose of the event was to establish the basis for the preparation of an
outline brief for the future development of Midsummer Boulevard East, Central
Milton Keynes.
The Midsummer Boulevard East development workshops were a collaborative
process whereby invited stakeholders such as local and parish councillors,
residents’ group representatives, local authority officers, consultants, business
and property owners were actively involved in formulating design and
development proposals for the area.
An objective of the process was to engage a broad range of local and national
expertise in order to identify areas of agreement that could be used to
enhance, support and direct proposals for future development and
improvement.
An overall aim was to avoid a prescriptive approach to the production of an
outline brief but rather to provide generic principles, ideas and proposals that
could form the rationale to direct and support subsequent detailed proposals.
These would form the basis for on-going discussions with the workshop
attendees and other stakeholders.
This report reflects this approach and is presented as a chronological account
of the developing design principles, ideas, proposals and key issues of
concern raised during the three workshop sessions. Those facilitator’s
comments that have been included are for reasons of either explanation
and/or clarity.
Within the context of the aim and objectives of the process the consensual
views of the participating groups have been included, which reflects the ethos
of the process whereby a mix of stakeholders working together in groups was
asked to share expertise and find common ground.
5
Inevitably there will be principles and issues that will be open for further
reflected interpretation by individuals and individual organisation members.
This should be perceived as a good thing as much work was produced over a
short period of time and a degree of flexibility and interpretation guarantees
the avoidance of a prescriptive approach and provides the scope for further
negotiation.
Structure of the report:
The report is divided in to 5 sections.
1. Outline of the workshop structure and format - with participant’s details
and group structure.
2. Workshop session 1: Developing initial principles and proposals generated at the 7th February session.
3. Workshop session 2: Refining the principles and proposals – generated
from the 8th February session.
4. Workshop session 3: Finalising principles, proposals and actions -–
generated from the 10th February session.
5. Concluding comments and recommendations.
6
1. Workshop participant details, aims, structure and
format.
1.1 Participant details.
87 participants took part in the workshop. The workshop ran over three
sessions, facilitated by Dr Jon Cooper. Participants worked in eight groups
constructed to ensure a mix of representation in each group. Table 1.0 lists
the invited participants and organisations.
1.2 Workshop aims & objectives.
The aim of the workshop was to establish an agreed package of ideas,
principles and proposals from a range of stakeholders that can inform the
future use, layout and design of Midsummer Boulevard East (MBE) and
development alongside it, within the context of the growth and intensification
of development planned for Central Milton Keynes (CMK) by 2026
The overarching intention was to ensure that the 2026 MBE will make an
enhanced positive contribution to the economic, social and environmental
improvement of the Primary Shopping Area within CMK and that the MBE of
2026 will be considered to be a “good place”.
The first day concentrated on developing an initial set of general design aims
and design principles to be applied to the development. This was achieved
by:
1. Identifying the qualities that make a “good” place in the context of a city
centre location like MBE;
2. Outlining important contextual material regarding the planning policy,
physical, transport and user characteristics of MBE;
3. Understanding the perspectives of a range of stakeholders;
4. Carrying out a SWOB analysis of the area (strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and barriers) and;
5. Illustrating a first set of design ideas on a 1:500 base plan.
7
Table 1.0 Participants’ details.
Note: not all participants attended all sessions of the workshop.
Organisation
Abbeygate
Adelphi St Neighbourhood Watch
Age UK Milton Keynes
All Bradville Residents Assn
Arriva
Arriva
Arriva
Arts & Heritage Alliance MK
Australian Super
Bidwells
Bray Associates
Bray Associates
BT Pension Scheme
City Discovery Centre
CMK Alliance
CMK Alliance
CMK Alliance / CMK Town Council
CMK Alliance / CMK Town Council
CMK Alliance / CMK Town Council
CMK Town Council
CMK Town Council
David Lock Associates
David Lock Associates
Great Linford Parish Council
Hammerson
Hammerson
Hammerson
Hammerson
Henderson
Henderson
Hermes
Hermes
Intu Properties
Intu Properties
Intu Properties
Koru MK
MK Forum
MK Forum
MK Gallery
MK Gallery
MK Gallery
MK Bus Users Group (MKBUG)
MK Bus Users Group (MKBUG)
Representatives
Clive Faine*
Hilarie Bowman
Paul Griffiths
Tony Peirson
Paul Morgan
Maq Alibhai
Stuart Winston
Jacky Scott
Jack McGoogan
Roger Yates
Henry Diamond
Brian Nunan
Chris Darroch
Henk van Aswegen
Robert de Grey*
David Lock*
Cllr Rebecca Kurth*
Cllr Ken Baker*
Cllr Andy Thomas*
Cllr Charles Ashbury
Cllr Andre Brady
Matt Lappin
Lawrence Revill
Cllr David Stabler
James Rowbotham
Adam Blacker
James Hepburn
Phillipa Zieba
Myles White
Chris Pyne
Ben Tollhurst
Gavin Murray
Brett Harbutt
Amy Scanlon
Mark Anders
Kay Greenhalgh
Tim Skelton
Carol Barac
Will Cousins
Jess Thompson
Anthony Spira
Peter Ballantyne
Alan Francis
Facilitator
Logistics (CMK Town Council)
Jon Cooper
Paul Cranfield*
Organisation
MKC Cabinet Leader
MKC Cabinet member
MKC Cabinet member
MKC Cabinet member
MKC Cabinet member
MKC Cabinet member
MKC Ward Councillor
MKC Ward Councillor
MKC Ward Councillor
MKC Ward Councillor
MKC Chief Executive
MKC Development Management
MKC Economic Development
MKC Highways
MKC Interim Asst Director, Planning
MKC Passenger Transport
MKC Urban Design
MKC Urban Design
MKC Urban Design
MKCCM
MKCCM
MKCCM
MKCCM
MKDP
MKDP
MKDP
Nat'l Market Traders Fed MK
Nat'l Market Traders Fed MK
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Stagecoach
Stagecoach
Sustrans
The Parks Trust
Theatre District Management
Theatre District Management
thecentre:mk Tenants Association
Urban Eden
Urban Eden
Virtual Viewing
Xplain
Xplain
Representatives
Cllr Andrew Geary
Cllr David Hopkins*
Cllr Peter Geary
Cllr Keith McLean
Cllr Edith Bald
Cllr Alice Bramall
Cllr Cec Tallack*
Cllr Rob Middleton
Cllr Paul Williams*
Cllr John Bint
David Hill
Anna Holloway
Pam Gosal
Brian Matthews
David Hackforth
Andrew Coleman
Grant Gibson
Neil Sainsbury
Alex Hopkins
Ian Jackson
Melanie Beck
Sarah Bannister
Carmel Blyth
Charles Macdonald
Bob Hill
John Duggan
Elizabeth Hobbs
Georgina Baidoun
Douglas Campbell
David Coles
Stuart Turner
Mike Leroy
Tom Waterhouse
Zoe Paget
Richard Manser
David Foster*
Sara Mills
Patrick Punch
James Waugh
Theo Chalmers
Ian Michie
Stewart Bailey*
Adrian Morrow
Linda Inoki*
*member of CMK Alliance (Steering Group / Project Team)
8
On completion of day one tasks a technical team, working on behalf of the
participants, examined the results of the workshop and produced a first draft
composite plan that attempted to bring together the ideas generated by the
participants in the first session.
The second day commenced with a presentation by the technical team of the
first composite plan. This was followed by a viewing of two videos by
Professor Jan Gehl as inspirational pieces designed to ensure that the
participants addressed the experience of place as well as the functional
attributes of the MBE area. On completion of the viewing the participants were
invited to audit the composite plan and refine it in light of the videos and other
additional issues that they considered important.
On completion of the second workshop session the technical team again
worked to combine the ideas generated by the participants and produced a
second refined version of the composite plan.
The third and final workshop session commenced with the participants
presenting their ideas from the second session as a reminder and then they
were shown the second composite plan and invited to check it for accuracy
and to add further refinements. The participant groups were invited to indicate
their level of support for the emerging plan and to identify any additional
actions that would increase the level of support for the emerging plan within
their group.
Throughout the workshop the participant groups were all asked to undertake
the same tasks and on completion of the various tasks feedback sessions
were held to clarify and identify points of common agreement – these points
were recorded throughout the three workshop sessions and their presentation
forms the bulk of this report.
9
2. Day One: Friday 7th February - Developing initial
principles and proposals.
1. TASK 1: Devise the specification for a “good place”;
2. TASK 2: Receive important factual background and context material;
3. TASK 3: Examine and summarise the perspectives of key stakeholders;
4. TASK 4: Carry out a site visit;
5. TASK 5: Complete a SWOB analysis of the MBE area;
6. TASK 6: Illustrate and annotate initial proposals on a 1:500 base plan;
7. TASK 7: Prepare design instructions for the technical team;
8. TASK 8: List other emerging issues.
2.1 Devising a “good place” specification.
At the beginning of the first day the participants were asked to list the qualities
that they considered made a “good” place. Table 2.0 lists the qualities in the
order identified at the workshop – they are not presented in any order of
preference.
Table 2.0 Specification of the qualities that make a ‘Good’ Place.

Understanding of climate – designed for climatic context.

A place to go and a place people want to be in.

It has reasons for people to go there.

Multiplicity of users.

Attractive, happening, vibrant and inspiring – a modern place with “delight”.

Inclusive – accessible for everyone.

Safe and comfortable.

Convenient and accessible – easy to get there.

Ambitious.

Clean.

Entertaining and diverse – something for everyone.

Not dominated by traffic.
10
Table 2.0 Specification of the qualities that make a ‘Good’ Place……continued.

Relates well to people.

Relates well to the natural world.

Vibrant - with a blend of activities.

Distinctive, memorable, easy to get there.

It has and is a unique selling point.

Timeless.

Inviting.

Complementary.
18 initial items were synthesized from the composite list generated at the 7th
Feb event and two additional items (the last two) were suggested for inclusion
in response to the discussions at the Feb 8th workshop.
“Inviting” was suggested at the workshop in response to the material shown
on the videos by Jan Gehl.
“Complementary” was suggested for inclusion to ensure that the character
and function of the MBE supported the wider CMK context.
Table 2.0 presents the participants with a specification that can be used to
audit future proposals for the development of MBE to ensure that it can be
considered to be a good place within the context of the wider city centre of
Milton Keynes.
Facilitator’s observation.
To enable the proper use of table 2.0 as an auditing tool it is suggested that a
series of indicators will need to be developed to assist the participants in
measuring just how closely any future proposals deliver their good place
specification. Essentially the good place specification constitutes a series of
intentions or desired qualities. What needs to be identified is exactly how they
are delivered in reality and how success can be made measurable. It may be
possible for the technical team to identify indicators on behalf of the wider
group of participants.
11
2.2 Essential information - background and context material.
The second session on February 7th consisted of a series of four short factual
briefing presentations providing essential data on the planning policy,
physical, access & movement and user context. Awareness of this information
was considered essential in ensuring that the participants’ emerging ideas
would be deliverable and responsive to the location.
The slides containing the background and contextual information shown at the
event are presented in appendix A of this report.
2.3 Understanding the perspectives and aspirations of
stakeholders.
To ensure that the workshop participants had an opportunity to communicate
their perspectives on the MBE and to ensure that everyone could gain an
appreciation of a wide range of other perspectives and views regarding the
development of MBE within the time constraints of the workshop format, all
the participants were invited to submit a short written statement summarising
their perspectives in advance of the workshop. 18 perspective statements
were received.
The 18 written statements were copied and each participant was presented
with a complete set of written perspectives in the third session on February
7th.
Working in their groups the participants were invited to examine the various
stakeholder perspectives. The groups were asked to read each perspective
statement and:
a) List the key points of each perspective;
b) Identify points of agreement and also highlight potential
disagreements;
c) Record their summary findings on the flip charts provided
On completion of the exercise the results were shared and areas of
commonality and difference were identified.
12
The original 18 perspective statements are available in appendix B of this
report. Table 3.0 below lists the areas of commonality found between the
various stakeholders’ perspectives as identified by the participant groups.
Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspective statements (CSPs).
(G1-G8 the workshop groups).
CSP 1. MBE should be a destination.

Attracting more people to come and to dwell in MBE. G1.

MBE needs to be improved as a destination. G5

MBE – regional destination. G6

MBE needs to become a destination. G8
CSP 2. Provision of a public or civic space(s).

Public civic space – yes/no/ where? G1

Civic/public square for mass gatherings, cultural/civic events venue. G2

Boulevard as the Square. G2

Space to socialise. G3

Town square – yes or no? G3

Public places. G6

Maybe a public square as a focal point. G8
CSP 3. MBE - a pedestrian dominated space.

Tension between different users – PT, pedestrians, cyclists, car, permeability. G1

Pedestrian priority. G2

Not pedestrainised totally – shared on terms. G2

Pedestrianise Lower 9th and 10th Streets – a possible consequence. G2

Alternative to cars – public transport mix but more pedestrian friendly. G6

Pedestrian connectivity. G6

Some pedestrianisation? G8

Pedestrian dominated? G8
CSP 6. Attract retail activity.

Indoor or Outdoor? G2

More flexible to attract retailers. G6
13
Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspective statements
(CSPs)…..continued.
CSP 5. Retain, expand and improve the market.

Market as an asset – how and where? G1

Market – more variety and quality – Market Hall/Cover – management. G3

Market is important but needs to be improved. G5

Market is a strong anchor. G6

Enhanced market. G8
CSP 6. The MBE has different areas that need to be treated differently.

Linear overall space with a number of different ‘places’ and functions along its
length. G1

West MBE is different from eastern MBE. G2

Linked spaces. G3

Degree of thought that MBE east of Secklow Gate needs to be treated differently
from MBE west of Secklow Gate. G5

Two broadly different areas to MBE. G8
CSP 7. Improve public transport access. But how is public transport dealt with in
MBE?

Role as a transport corridor – need for public transport access and interchange –
how and where? G1.

Move buses off. G2

High capacity public transport all through MBE from end to end. G2

Remove the MSP covenant for public transport. G2

Bus interchange on MBE or very close. G2

Circular service – Silbury/Avebury. G2

Buses – critical to have access. G3

Buses – too intrusive and need to be moved out.

Majority support re-routing buses. G5

More public transport. G6

Relocate public transport to a location close to MBE. G8

Stark choice – either keep or remove. G8

Re-open the corridor thorough Midsummer place. G8
14
Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspective statements
(CSPs)…..continued.
CSP 8. Provide better pedestrian and cycle access and linkage.

Better linkage between different uses. G1

More and safer cycle routes. G2

Pedestrian links. G3

North – south pedestrian access. G5

Lack of permeability. G8
CSP 9. Provide active edges to MBE.

Use and role of frontage development. G1

Needs more active frontages. G5.

Need for active edges. G8
CSP 11. Provide easily accessible, more and better parking.

Disabled and elderly parking nearby. G2

More and better parking – multi-storey – relocated. G3

Needs some parking e.g. for disabled, but other parking could be moved to multistorey car parks to allow space to be used for multi-functional purposes. G5

Better and easier disabled movement/parking. G8
CSP 12. Provide community and family facilities.

Community Hub near central interchange. G8
CSP 13. Increase vibrancy during the day and night.

Day and evening use. G2

Mixed uses. G2

Vibrant activity. G3

Night-time access. G3

Greater vibrancy needed. G5

Space to have evening attractions. G8
15
Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspective statements
(CSPs)…..continued.
CSP 14. How to reconcile the past and the future?

Preservation vs Change? G1

Preservation vs Change? G3
CSP 15. How is the width of the boulevard to be addressed?

Width of the Boulevard – central thoroughfare between the trees – flexibility at the
edges? G1

Narrow or integrate uses across - MBE narrow or not? G2
Examination of table 3.0 reveals 15 main themes that the participants
identified as being common to a number of the stakeholder perspectives. 12
of the themes can be considered as common statements of aspiration for
MBE, while 3 others are questions that require attention and clarification
through further dialogue. The 15 items have been arranged below in two
parts: firstly the 12 statements are listed; these are followed by the 3
questions:

MBE should be a destination.

MBE should contain provision for a public or civic space(s).

MBE - a Pedestrian dominated space.

Attract retail activity.

Retain, expand and improve the market.

The MBE has different areas that need to be treated differently.

Provide better pedestrian and cycle access and linkage.

Provide active edges to MBE.

Provide easily accessible, more and better parking.

Provide community and family facilities.

Increase vibrancy during the day and evening/night.

Improve public transport access - but how is public transport
dealt with in MBE?

How to reconcile the past and the future?
16

How is the width of the boulevard to be addressed?
The above list provides an initial set of MBE specific aspirations held in
common by a number of stakeholders, and combined with the earlier
specification of a “Good Place”, it can form an embryonic brief for any
future development team requested to address the design of MBE.
2.4 Evaluating the place – SWOB analysis.
To provide more detail to this emerging and embryonic brief the participants
were asked to visit the MBE area after lunch on February 7th and, using the
good place definition, context information, Stakeholder perspectives and their
site observations as reference points, they were requested to carry out a
SWOB (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Barriers) analysis of MBE
to help decide specifically how MBE can be improved and to ensure that it
could meet the common aspirations and be considered a “good place”.
Tables 4.0 to 7.0 list the items identified by the eight groups and constitute a
composite SWOB analysis of MBE. The tables list the items in order of
frequency of mention across the eight groups of participants.
Table 4.0 Composite SWOB analyses – STRENGTHS. (1-8 indicate the number of groups
recording a similar item)
S1. Presence of the market 6
S2. Central and accessible location – the heart of CMK 5
S3. Trees along the boulevard 4
S4. Car parking availability 4
S5. Availability of development land 4
S6. Theatre and gallery and leisure offer 3
S7. Mix of uses 3
S8. Strong retail offer and shopping centre 3
S9. Bus accessibility 2
S10. Portes Cochere 2
S11. Listed building character and appearance 2
17
Table 4.0 Composite SWOB analyses – STRENGTHS….continued.
S12. Retail growth plans 1
S13. Multi-storey car park (short term parking) 1
S14. Disabled parking 1
S15. Pedestrian segregation 1
S16. Linear character – ‘grandiose’ 1
S17. Dual carriageway traffic capacity 1
S18. Flexibility 1
S19. Servicing accessibility 1
S20. High footfall at MSP 1
The participants identified 20 strengths within MBE that should be developed
and enhanced in future design proposals. Five of the strengths were
commonly identified by at least 50% of the workshop groups.
Table 5.0 Composite SWOB analyses – WEAKNESSES. (1-8 indicate the number of
groups recording a similar item)
W1. Maintenance, management and appearance of public realm 8
W2. Limited active frontages 6
W3. Decline in food centre and Theatre District – empty buildings and land 5
W4. Introverted shops 4
W5. Larger than human scale and sheer size 3
W6. Retail offer could be better 3
W7. Wayfinding is poor, esp. Midsummer Place 3
W8. Unattractive bus stops and passenger waiting areas 2
W9. Micro-climate and exposure lack of weather protection 2
W10. Poor quality of market environment 2
W11. Poor lighting of pedestrian routes and Secklow Gate underpass 2
W12. Lack of spatial cohesion 2
W13. Quality of north south pedestrian routes 2
W14. Cycle routes are poorly defined 1
W15. Market layout impedes pedestrian accessibility 1
W16. Retail units too small 1
18
Table 5.0 Composite SWOB analyses – WEAKNESES….continued.
W17. Market opening days are limited 1
W18. Lack of independent retailers 1
W19. Confusing parking regime 1
W20. Traffic dominance 1
W21. Chaotic PT interchange 1
W22. Buses impact on pedestrian environment 1
W23. Space west of MSP lacks role and function 1
W24. End of Secklow Gate is very quiet 1
W25. Surface car parks 1
W26. Lack of events space 1
26 specific weakness were identified that need to be addressed in future
proposals. All groups identified a lack of maintenance and the current
appearance of the public realm as a major weakness. Two strong themes can
be identified:
i)
the poor personal experience of the place – words and phrases
such as poor quality, unattractive, introverted, exposure, chaotic,
lack of cohesion, poor definition, impeded access, confusion, –
suggest that MBE currently seems to have a poor image due to its
underlying structure.
ii)
lack of high quality facilities – retail units too small, decline in
food centre, market opening limited, lack of role, etc. suggest that
the functional aspect of MBE needs to be upgraded.
19
Table 6.0 Composite SWOB analyses – OPPORTUNITIES. (1-8 indicate the number of
groups recording a similar item)
O1. Development land and space is readily available 5
O2. Increase market days and improve quality 5
O3. Median space could be better utilised linking Campbell Park to market
and programming the space 4
O4. Improve space west of MSP as a gateway to MBE 4
O5. Rationalise/ remove some surface parking if better use can be found 3
O6. Regeneration of food centre and Theatre District 3
O7. MSP public transport easement and covered space 3
O8. Establish two-sided streets and active edges 2
O9. Exploit Sunny side of shopping building and wide footways 2
O10. Accommodate cars in slow streets and shared spaces 2
O11. Extra wide pavements on north side of MBE could be used 1
O12. Book-end eastern end of MBE creating an ‘attractor’ 1
O13. Limited and substantial landownerships 1
O14. Space programming: more events 1
O15. Gallery extension 1
O16. Innovation and being different and unique 1
O17. Campbell Park 1
O18. Remove Secklow Gate ramps 1
O19. Enhance Secklow Gate environment 1
O20. Link portes cocheres and put activity there 1
O21. Remove clutter and signage 1
O22. Flexibility 1
O23. Increase evening activity 1
O24. Better public transport spine and interchange 1
O25. Extend shopping building east and link to Theatre District 1
O26. More active frontages and commercial activity 1
O27. Create a focal point 1
O28. Levels at eastern end of MBE are easier to accommodate 1
O27. Bus interchange in Secklow Gate including community hub 1
O28. Improve connectivity to Campbell Park 1
20
28 opportunities to improve the MBE experience were identified across the
workshop, with 4 of them being common to at least 50% of the groups. These
opportunities should be examined in detail and addressed as the basis for
improvement in future proposals.
Table 7.0 Composite SWOB analyses – BARRIERS. (1-8 indicate the number of groups
recording a similar item)
B1. Secklow Gate is a physical barrier but north-south route is important 4
B2. Level changes 3
B3. Barriers to pedestrians: Market and shopping centre when closed 3
B4. Finance and funding 2
B5. Clutter 2
B6. Trees and planting are poorly sited 2
B7. Too much space and width 2
B8. Car parking as a barrier to pedestrians 2
B9. Uncertainty over public transport proposals 2
B10. Sleeping policemen and speed humps impede public transport 1
B11. Indirect bus routing and dog-leg around MSP 1
B12. Listed status of shopping centre 1
B13. Planning system (generally) 1
B14. Future management 1
B15. Inflexible shop tenant requirements 1
B16. Surface level car parking 1
B17. Power in a few hands 1
B18. Parking and charging regime 1
B19. Too many lanes of traffic 1
B20. Conflict between different users and modes of transport 1
B21. Speed limits on quieter roads 1
B22. ‘Grandiose’ 1
B23. Trees shouldn’t be removed 1
B24. Poor sight lines 1
B25. MK heritage and legacy – people wanting to retain the status quo 1
21
In terms of barriers to the improvement of MBE table 7.0 lists 25 items. They
fall into three broad categories:
i)
Physical barriers e.g. trees, poor sight lines, level changes etc.;
ii)
Management issues e.g. parking regime, tenancy requirements,
indirect bus routing, conflict between modes of movement and
users and;
iii)
Political issues e.g. the planning system, people wanting to retain
the status quo, finance and funding, and uncertainty.
The listing of barriers to improving MBE highlights the participants’ views that
the improvement of MBE is not just a physical issue but will also require
political, economic and long-term management of the place to be addressed
in any future development proposals.
The SWOB analysis provides future design and planning teams with a
detailed evaluation of MBE based on local and expert knowledge. Any future
development proposals should illustrate and make clear to the participants
how these items have been addressed in any future proposals.
2.5 Creating the place – generating initial ideas and
proposals.
On completion of the SWOB analysis the participants were invited to illustrate
how they thought the MBE could be developed by annotating a 1:500 scale
base map and using wooden blocks and other components to scale e.g.
buses and people, to construct a 3D model to represent their group’s ideas.
To ensure each plan was properly examined and that they could easily be
compared the technical team undertook to convert the workshop plans into a
series of representative diagrams. The diagrams are presented in Figures1.0
to 8.0.
22
Figure 1.0: Group 1 first proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
Figure 2.0: Group 2 first proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
23
Figure 3.0: Group 3 first proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
Figure 4.0: Group 4 first proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
24
Figure 5.0: Group 5 First proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
Figure 6.0: Group 6 First proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
25
Figure 7.0: Group 7 First proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
Figure 8.0: Group 8 First proposal diagram - 7th Feb.
26
On completion of the modelling exercise and as a catalyst for discussion
(within the time constraints of the workshop format) one group was asked to
present their design ideas to the other groups. Each group was then invited to
outline how similar or different their proposals were to the first presenting
group’s model and to give a short summary of their proposals. The groups
were then asked to give the technical team two instructions that they felt were
used to guide their model, and which they felt should be used to guide the
future of Midsummer Boulevard East. Further additional instructions were then
invited. The resultant set of design instructions are presented in table 8.0 in
the order they were offered at the workshop - they are not presented in any
order of preference.
Table 8.0 Technical Team Instructions from 7th February sessions.
Group 1
Di1. Extend east end of shopping building with active edges and significantly
enhanced kinks into Campbell Park.
Di2. Introduce a new book-end building at Campbell Park end of MBE, with smaller
attractions including a café and wedding chapel in the park to draw people through.
Group 2
Di3. Create a beautiful promenade along the length of MBE with new paving, safe
routes for pedestrians, and space for public events. Buses removed from MBE
Di4. Shopping buildings expands over wide pavement area along the south side of
the listed building and along northern side next to JLP but not onto parking. Surface
parking on north side of MBE replaced in this location with high quality events space.
Car parking in the south side of MBE retained.
Group 3
Di5. Find new and beneficial uses on vacant land parcels to the south of MBE –
could feature a culture zone, redevelopment of food centre for convenience/family
uses, Point area could be a PT interchange with space for a tall landmark.
Di6. If good active uses can be found investigate the sacrifice of surface car parking
to the northern side of MBE adjoining the shopping building.
27
Table 8.0 Technical Team Instructions from 7th February sessions…..continued.
Group 4
Di7. Retain and expand the market towards Crown Walk, Acorn Walk and into the
underused premium parking bays either side of MBE at Secklow Gate.
Di8. Enhance north south routes at Field, Eagle and Crown Walks. Establish a new
walk – Margaret Powell Walk – to connect to the theatre. Maximise use of Portes
Cocheres.
Group 5
Di9. Conventional buses removed from MBE to be replaced with a clean and safe
system that can work within a pedestrian environment.
Di10. Active frontages and a series of ‘rooms’ to be considered along MBE,
strengthening cross-routes and avoiding fragmentation. Test also removal of part or
all of Secklow Gate east-west ramps as part of the testing of the rooms scenario.
One of the rooms should be a market.
Group 6
Di11. Expand MSP down to Avebury Boulevard taking in the office buildings and
removing buses from MBE.
Di12. Move market to southern side of Secklow Gate.
Group 7
Di13. Demolish the MSP Arch and de-clutter the listed shopping building turning it
into a designer classic. Enlarge at basement level to increase retail floorspace.
Di14. Introduce a shared surface along MBE to be used for a variety of activities with
immaculate paving over which cars can still pass when required.
Group 8
Di15. Western side of MBE to be closed to traffic with buses re-routed and a bus
station off Secklow Gate.
Di16 A 20 storey hotel and conference centre to the east of JLP with views over and
deck to Campbell Park.
Additional items
Di17. Redway route to be extended east/west linking into the Redways at Saxon
Gate.
Di18. Retain Secklow Gate as an important north/south connection. Could be
extended and turned into a more elegant structure flanked by development that
would generate value.
28
The resultant 18 draft design instructions formed an initial technical team
brief. The technical team examined the instructions and also completed an
audit of the proposals shown in figures 1.0 to 8.0 to arrive at a composite list
of specific proposals generated across all the groups.
The list of individual and specific proposals is shown in table 9.0 ranked in
order by the number of groups that mentioned them. This ranking gives a
simple indication of the level of commonality that was emerging at this point in
the workshop in relation to some of the specific ideas and proposals.
Table 9.0 Emerging ideas extracted from the initial proposal plans.
Initial Proposal
Number of
groups
mentioning
the initial
proposal
1.
Possibility of extending building lines on the North side.
6
2. Provision of multi-storey parking – NE and /or SW.
6
3. Buses diverted to Secklow Gate with an interchange.
6
4. Mixed-use development east of John Lewis – views over park.
5
5. Strong connections to Campbell Park.
5
6. Market retained and extended on the Boulevard.
5
7. North-south cycle and pedestrian connections
5
8. Book-end, landmark at the eastern end of the Boulevard
4
9. Possibly sever either or both ramps at Secklow Gate
4
10. Market Hall in Food Centre/D3.4
4
11. New pedestrian space at west end – west of Secklow gate.
4
12. A series of linked attractions to be located on the central median
- develop an Art walk along the Median.
13. Cycle route connections east and west.
3
14. Parking on south side – access on south.
3
15. Active edges to new development.
3
16. Car access from the south
2
17. A new landmark on the point.
2
18. Redevelop Point/D3.4 together.
2
29
3
Table 9.0 Emerging ideas extracted from the initial proposal plans….continued.
19. Extend the building lines on the South side.
2
20. Keep the trees
1
21. Midsummer Place roof removed.
1
22. Reinforcement of Portes Cocheres lines.
1
23. Fully pedestrianised and no buses.
1
24. Re-open Midsummer Place.
1
25. Open Midsummer Place to electric buses.
1
26. Needs clarity on uses for land on the south side.
1
27. Wedding chapel in Campbell Park.
1
28. Develop the eastern end as cultural zone.
1
29. Provide a western gateway to give a sense of arrival.
1
30. Pedestrian route through Midsummer place retained.
1
31. Remove the V8 underpass.
1
32. Western end to be car and bus free except for disabled access.
1
33. The centre of the boulevard to be used for advanced public
transport solutions.
34. Develop a series of linked “rooms” along the boulevard.
1
1
Table 9.0 lists 34 specific ideas for MBE, of which 11 were mentioned by at
least half the groups. On completion of this “ideas audit” the technical team
then worked to consolidate the ideas and place them on to a single base plan
to construct a first draft composite scheme or “package” for review, comment
and refinement by the participants on 8th February. The initial composite
package is shown in figure 9.0. at section 3.2 of this report.
2.6 Listing other emerging issues.
In the final session on February 7th each group was asked to list other issues
regarding the development of the MBE that were not covered on the day and
that will require future attention. The composite list of issues is shown on
table 10.0 in the order they were received at the workshop – they are not in
order of precedence although they are grouped by topic.
30
Table 10.0. Other emerging Issues – from 7th February.
1. Political Leadership and Administration
Oi1.1 Political will and Leadership for public acceptance and Business acceptance
and long-term commitment/consistency
Oi1.2. Imagination and Vision
Oi1.3. Mechanism for collaboration between landowners
Oi1.4. External sensitivities and PR – dealing with the sacred cows!
2. Planning
Oi2.1. Long-term strategy and spatial plan for Public Transport and Parking
Oi2.2. Planning certainty – length of the planning process
3. Development and Development Constraints
Oi3.1. Flexible, sustainable, adaptable design and building materials
Oi3.2. Impact on the Listed Building and constraints on development.
Oi3.3. Phasing
Oi3.4. Cost and viability
Oi3.5. Sustainable Development standards
Oi3.6. Understanding constraints imposed by essential infrastructure
Oi3.7. Need for, role and function of an iconic landmark
Oi3.8. Control of the height and scale of buildings
4. Property Market and Demand
Oi4.1. Extent of mixed use – is residential really acceptable here (probably not!)
Oi4.2. Commercial user and occupier demand for new space
5. The Public Realm
Oi5.1. Who cares for, safeguards and “programmes the public space and finding
resources to change the quality - animation and curating
Oi5.2. Longevity and future proofing like the original CMK design
Oi5.3. How to manage the market to raise its game
6. Connections
Oi6.1. Future of Lower 9th Street
Oi6.2. 24 hour North South route(s) across the city centre.
Oi6.3. The Midsummer Place Covenant – to go or to stay?
7. Environment
Oi7.1 Sunlight penetration to public space
The issues shown on table 10.0 fall into 6 broad categories in terms of
questions raised and possible impacts that will need to be addressed:
31
i)
The need for political leadership and administration;
ii)
The need for long term certainty in the planning process;
iii)
Awareness of physical, management and financial aspects to
the development process and development constraints;
iv)
Understanding and imaginative demand to property and
market demand;
v)
The long term maintenance, management and improvement in
the quality of the public realm;
vi)
The improvement and clarification of connections in to and
through MBE;
vii)
Recognition of the environmental aspects and impacts of
design and the impact they have on the experience of public
spaces.
As with the barriers to development shown on table 7.0 the list of other issues
highlights the need for any future proposals to be cognisant of the political,
financial and long tern management needs of MBE.
32
3. Day Two: Saturday 8th February - Refining the
principles and proposals – making sure that we deal
with the experience of place.

TASK 1: receive the first draft composite plan for comment and
checking and get clarification on the emerging first draft composite
package for MBE prepared on behalf of the workshop by the technical
team;

TASK 2: To view two inspirational videos and to use those pieces as
the basis for further refinement of the emerging proposals;

TASK 3: To further refine the emerging composite plan and give an
indication of the level of support within each group for the emerging
proposals.
3.1 Workshop management.
At the start of the event on February 8th the facilitator addressed the workshop
in regard to an issue of process management and protocol. This short section
is included simply as a point of accuracy and as a record of the refinement
and management of the workshop process. It had been brought to the
facilitator’s attention that some members of the various groups felt that their
voice was not being heard and that the group was being dominated by a
single assertive character or opinion. The facilitator made this situation known
to the workshop and requested that: i) those more assertive individuals “take
a step back and allow others to speak”; ii) that the tech team members in
each group did not write on the flip charts; iii) that two people within each
group take responsibility for making sure that everyone had a chance to
speak and; iv) that if problems persisted the facilitator was informed and
would then make an intervention.
3.2 Presentation of the first draft composite package.
In the first session the technical team presented their first attempt at
producing a composite package of proposals from the models produced on
February 7th. The first composite plan is shown in figure 9.0 below.
33
34
The first draft composite plan represents diagramatically a package of ten
consolidated suggestions:
1. Midsummer Place - reconceived.
2. West of Secklow Gate – de-cluttered, removal of ramps, new carpet.
3. East of Secklow Gate - sculpture walk, ramps retained and vehicles by
invitation only.
4. Market enriched and diversified and extended east-west.
5. Market Hall Options.
6. Porte Cochere crossings intensively used connecting multi-storey car
parks and Midsummer Mall
7. A Midsummer Boulevard transit route
8. Secklow Bus Interchange, left, right and centre.
9. Sunnyside Extended
10. Midsummer Palaces
The presentation of the first draft composite package received a spontaneous
round of applause from the workshop participants. A short question and
answer session followed where some of the emerging ideas were outlined in a
little more detail.
At this point the participants were requested to hold onto any further questions
as they would be provided with a print-out of the emerging composite diagram
and would then be given the opportunity to examine it in detail within their
groups and to make further observation, requests, refinements and
amendments.
35
3.3 Dealing with the experience of place.
Prior to auditing the emerging first composite package the participants were
asked to watch two videos by Professor Jan Gehl and then attempt to use
some of the concepts and ideas shown to audit the emerging proposals and
add further refinements as a means of starting to produce a second
composite package to be shown on Monday 10th February.
The first video can be found at the link below and dealt with the idea of
changing mind sets in relation to transforming public spaces into places for
people and realising very high levels of ambition in transforming the public
realm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lid9ELzzT8Y
The second video can be found at the following link and deals with the more
detailed aspects of place design attempting to ensure that the link between
the physical characteristics of the built environment and the individual human
experience of places is more clearly understood. The extract is only six
minutes long and is taken from a one hour long film entitled “Cities for People”
by Lars Mortensen.
http://mortensenfilm.dk/documentary/cities-for-people
3.4 Scoring the initial composite package.
After watching the video presentations each group was asked to carry out a
detailed audit of the emerging composite proposals in relation to their ideas
from day 1, the other emerging issues and the place experience presentation.
The groups were asked to score the emerging proposals by indicating the
numbers of people within each group that supported or did not support the
emerging proposals and identify improvements in the form of new principles
and/or specific spatial proposals. The cumulative results of the audit are
shown both on table 11.0 and in figures 10.0 to 17.0.
36
A number of the items (2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 on table 11.0) were felt by some
groups to contain a number of sub-clauses that made their final tallies of
numbers supporting/not supporting etc. more nuanced – these subdivisions
are shown in table 11.0.
In addition to the specific items listed on the table four more general points
can be identified from Table 11.0:

Most of the proposals shown on the composite plan (figure 9.0)
received support from a majority of the participants;

A number of items were felt to be too vague to be supported in
anything other than principle – reconceiving Midsummer Place,
extending the market, locating the Midsummer palaces (landmarks).

A number of people abstained from offering a view or recorded a
“maybe” as they felt that they needed more information on which to
base their decision.

A specific item that caused a large number of participants to abstain
was the potential removal of the existing ramps. The removal of the
connecting Midsummer Boulevard with Secklow Gate was part of the
composite proposal but it was generally considered by the participants
that insufficient information was available to enable any specific
decision to be made at this point. Moreover it was felt that any decision
regarding the removal or retention of any or all of the East or West
facing ramps needed much more specific information regarding the
possible impact on the market, impact on connectivity, and visual
impact, and that technical issues also required detailed investigation
e.g. structural feasibility. At this point the removal of the ramps was not
agreed/supported by the workshop.
Table 11.0 provides any future design team with a list of potential actions that
received general support but also a list of items that require further
investigation in order to confirm the participant’s support.
37
Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb.
Proposal
Agree/Support
Disagree/Don't
support
Maybe/Abstain
CONDITIONS
Generally agreed in principle but what does the
1. Midsummer
Place -
phrase actually mean? Clarification needed on
65
3
0
reconceived.
detail. Retain thoroughfares. More discussion and
investigation needed regarding the retention of the
roof.
2. West of Secklow
This item was seen by several groups as containing
Gate – decluttered, removal
36
6
0
of ramps, new
indication of support as a single item - see items
2a, 2b and 2c.
carpet.
2a De-cluttering
too many individual clauses to enable an accurate
33
0
1
38
Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb ….continued.
A decision regarding the removal or retention of
2b Removal of
Ramps
It was generally considered that insufficient information was
available to enable any specific decision to be made on this
item at this point.
any or all of the East/West facing ramps needs
much more information regarding the possible
impact on the market, impact on connectivity and
visual impact. Technical issues also require
investigation e.g. structure.
2c New Carpet
10
0
0
Clarity required on detail.
41
9
1
Support in principle but further information needed.
10
0
0
3. East of Secklow
Gate - sculpture
walk, ramps
retained/removed
and vehicles by
invitation only.
3a Sculpture walk
A decision regarding the removal or retention of
3b Ramps
retained/removed
It was generally considered that insufficient information was
available to enable any specific decision to be made on the
item at this point.
any or all of the East/West facing ramps needs
much more information regarding the possible
impact on the market, impact on connectivity and
visual impact. Technical issues also require
investigation e.g. structure.
39
Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb ….continued.
3c Vehicles
invitation only
2
8
0
52
3
3
10
0
0
2
8
0
58
1
3
More discussion needed on specific location.
46
5
3
Reinstate crossings through the area.
16
0
0
Currently poor quality.
4. Market enriched
and diversified and
extended east-
More investigation required to allow any detailed
decision on the specific location.
west.
4a Market
enriched and
diversified.
4b Market
extended E and W
5. Market Hall
Options.
More investigation required to allow any detailed
decision on the specific location.
More investigation required to allow any detailed
decision on the specific location.
6. Porte Cochere
crossings
intensively used
connecting MSCP
and Midsummer
Mall
6a Porte Cochere
40
Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb ….continued.
6b Multi-storey
parking
15
1
0
More detail needed on the specific location and
7. Midsummer
Boulevard transit
layout. Some people felt it should be on MBE
51
16
1
route
others that it could run around adjacent roads. In all
cases any solution should be convenient and
accessible by disabled users.
8. Secklow Bus
Interchange, left,
67
0
1
right and centre.
9. Sunnyside
Extended
More detail needed on specific design and specific
locations
This phrase was felt to be vague. More detailed
47
8
2
description needed. More specific location data
needed.
9a Sunny Side
5
3
0
9b North side
4
4
0
The idea of providing landmarks was generally
10. Midsummer
Palaces
accepted but further definition is required to decide
42
5
4
if this refers buildings or spaces or both and to
address, scale, height, massing etc,
41
Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb ….continued.
10a Location East
and West
10b Location at the
Point
Totals
10
0
0
More specific location data needed.
Youth congregate at the point. Where will they go?
10
8
0
This issue needs further investigation in order for a
decision to be reached.
632
79
19
42
3.5
5 Furtherr refinem
ment of th
he emerg
ging prop
posals
On completion of the au
udit of the ffirst compo
osite packa
age and thee indication of
leve
els of supp
port, the groups were
e asked to place a sheet of traccing paper
ove
er a diagram
m of their original
o
pla
an and werre invited to
o refine theeir proposa
als
further to provvide a seco
ond set of plans to be
e audited by
b the techhnical team
m as
the basis for the
t produc
ction of a se
econd com
mposite pac
ckage for ppresentatio
on
on February 10
1 th. The resultant
r
re
efined prop
posal diagrrams are sshown in
figu
ures 10.0 to
o 17.0 belo
ow.
Figure 10. Group
p 1 revised proposal
p
- 8th Feb.
43
Figure 11. Group
p 2 revised proposal
p
- 8th Feb.
Figure 12. Group
p 3 revised proposal
p
- 8th Feb.
44
Figure 13. Group 4 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
Figure 14. Group 5 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
45
Figure 15. Group 6 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
Figure 16. Group 7 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
46
Figure 17. Group 8 revised proposal - 8th Feb.
At the end of the session held on February 8th each group was asked to
outline briefly their additional refinements to their earlier models, shown in
diagram form in figures 1.0 to 8.0 above, as a means of drawing the technical
team’s attention to the items that the groups wanted to be addressed in the
second iteration of the emerging composite package.
Table 12.0 summarises the additional variations and features proposed by the
eight groups.
47
Table 12.0 Additional refinements to the original proposals - 8th Feb.
Group 1
1. Working with existing circulation routes.
2. Preserve the trees as the symbol of a sustainable urban showcase.
3. Human Scale.
4. Slow speed limit.
5. Iconic building on the V8 Bridge.
6. Make provision for young people.
7. Exemplar for renewable energy.
8. Development symmetry/consistency each side of Secklow Gate south.
9. Public space for people use.
Group 2
10. The median of the MBE as social space between commercial worlds.
11. Design as distinctive rooms.
12. Give some public space in return for getting some public space upgrades.
13. A social enterprise company or trust needs to be set up to run the [MBE as a]
venue.
Group 3
14. Taxi access.
15. Disabled parking spaces are critical.
16. Traffic access from Avebury Boulevard.
17. Take away the northern ramps only (possibly).
18. Pedestrian route over Secklow Gate.
19. Bike hire provision to be provided.
20. Midsummer place should have or be a public civic landmark.
Group 4
21. Culture/leisure spine on Lower 12th Street.
22. Facilities needed for young people.
Group 5
23. Programming the spaces to complement adjoining uses.
24. Develop the eastern end as cultural/leisure zone.
25. Preserve the central corridor but allow it to change over time to accommodate
flexible transit solutions e.g. Trams etc.
48
Table 12.0 Additional refinements to the original proposals - 8th Feb….continued.
Group 6
26. Maintain a transit route.
27. Mixed-use development in the southwest quadrant of the city centre.
28. Establish a Business Development District.
Group 7
29. University on the Food Centre/D3.4.
30. 5 Storeys maximum height.
31. MBE should be the “largest intimate space in the world”.
32. Green structure should extend into the boulevard.
33. Use trees to alter the microclimate.
Group 8
34. Midsummer Winter Garden – cover the whole boulevard with large “sails” or
canopies [to ensure year round use].
35. Close Midsummer Arcade and relocate the retail frontage to the boulevard.
The technical team took the diagrams shown as figures 10.0 to 17.0 and
examined them in detail in an attempt to consolidate the evolving ideas and
construct a second composite plan that represented the core commonalities
emerging between the groups. The second composite package was
presented for examination in the second part of the session held on February
10th.
49
4. Day Three: Monday 10th February - Finalising
principles, proposals and actions - ensuring that the
future MBE is a good place.

TASK 1: short presentation and verification by each group of their
emerging proposals from day 2 as summarised by the tech team;

TASK 2: The technical team present a second composite summary of
the principles, proposals and actions generated in day 2 back to the
workshop for verification of accuracy and acceptability;

TASK 3: Each group examines in detail the composite proposals
refined by the technical team and decides the degree to which they
support the proposals and list additional changes that would increase
the group’s support.
4.1 Lancing the boils.
At the start of the event on February 10th the facilitator again addressed the
workshop in regard to process management and protocol.
It had again been brought to the facilitator’s attention that some members of
the various groups still felt that their voice was not being heard and that the
group was being dominated by a single assertive character or opinion.
Other participants were concerned that some items had been “agreed” as
representing a workshop consensus and that is was inaccurate.
Several participants were concerned that they had not been given sufficient
time to make important decisions and that they did not have sufficient
information on which to base their decisions.
The facilitator made the above views known to the workshop and made the
following points:

Listening and taking notice. i) Everyone at the workshop had an
equal right to be heard; ii) the more assertive individuals should again
“take a step back and allow others to speak”; iii) the tech team
50
members in each group should not write on the flip charts; iv) two
people within each group, including the tech team member, take
responsibility for making sure that everyone had a chance to speak
and; v) if problems persisted the facilitator was informed and would
then make an intervention.

Time compression – this is not the end. It was pointed out that this
workshop constituted the very start of an on-going consultation
process. Rebecca Kurth stated that it was intended to reconvene the
workshop group to maintain and ensure their further input and
direction.

No fixed decisions at present. At this point in the workshop process
none of the proposals made by any groups or individuals represented
fixed decisions made by the workshop participants although areas of
commonality were emerging.

Conditions are recorded and will be reported. Any conditions
attached to indications of support for the emerging proposals would be
recorded and reported – including the need for more information and
investigation.

Ramps – no decision can be made – impacts not known. In relation
to the specific issue of the existing ramps on MBE/Secklow Gate, it
was reiterated that at the end of the first workshop day (Feb7th) it was
agreed that no decision could be made regarding the possible removal
of the ramps as insufficient information was available in regard to the
possible impacts of their removal on the market, visual character and
circulation and that position had not changed.

Extending building lines – no decisions on where, how or under
what conditions. Regarding the draft proposal to possibly extend the
existing building lines, again no specific decisions had been made by
the workshop participants at this point.
The facilitator then rephrased the aim of the workshop and specifically the aim
of the third workshop event of February 10th. The rephrased aim of the
workshop was/is: “To produce an outline brief for further work”.
51
Facilitator’s comment:
A short discussion took place around these issues and a participant reminded
the workshop that the issue of trust was paramount in the event being
successful and in addressing issues that had been causes of confrontation in
the past. This formed a good point at which to recommence the workshop
process.
At this point the participants were given a copy of a summary analysis of a
recent public exhibition that had received 277 comments from people in the
Centre MK listing what they liked, didn’t like and would like to see in MBE.
Summary details of this analysis can be seen in appendix C.
4.2 Presentation by the groups and listing of new ideas from
the Feb 8th diagrams.
As a reminder to the workshop each group presented their proposals
produced at the Feb 8th event on screen to the whole workshop group. The
proposals are shown in Figures 10.0 to 17.0 and table 12.0 above.
4.3 Presentation of the second composite package by the
technical team and indications of support by the groups.
The technical team presented the second composite plan as a refined
package of proposals that it felt represented the features common to most
groups’ refined proposals - see figure 18 below.
52
53
12 key features are shown on the second composite plan:

Existing circulation routes to be 24 hour (wherever practical);

New possible building line extensions;

5 outdoor rooms were illustrated running from west to east:

Midsummer Place;

An urban public space;

The extended market;

Garden public space;

Cultural public space.

A Transit route maintained down the centre of the boulevard

A high quality public promenade.

Public transport interchange;

Mixed-use development to the southern side of the MBE.
A short question and answer session took place where opportunity for
clarification was provided.
After the presentation the groups were presented with print outs of the plan
and invited to audit the proposal and indicate their level of support for the
package of proposals.
Table 12.0 shows the levels of support for the illustrated package as indicated
verbally by each of the eight groups.
54
Table 12.0 Levels of support indicated by each group for the second composite
package.
Group 1 = Very High. 100% support, but conditional.
Group 2 = Very High.
Group 3 = Very High – conditional on the transit route supporting advanced
public transit solutions. Overall score of 9/10
Group 4 = 8/10, Very High. Overall score of 8/10
Group 5 = Very, Very High.
Group 6 = Very High. An overall score of 8/10, which would be higher if some
of the unknowns could be overcome.
Group 7 = Very High.
Group 8 = Very High.
Overall the second composite package received very high levels of support
from all the workshop groups.
4.4. How to increase levels of support.
In addition to indicating their general level of support the participants were
given tracing paper sheets and asked to record their suggestions for
additional measures that would increase the level of support within the group
plus any additional amendments, comments and refinements for this
workshop. These comments, where provided, are shown on figures 19.0 to
26.0 and on Table 13.0 below.
55
Figure 19. Group 1 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
Figure 20. Group 2 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
56
Figure 21. Group 3 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
Figure 22. Group 4 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
57
Figure 23. Group 5 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
Figure 24. Group 6 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
58
Figure 25. Group 7 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
Figure 26. Group 8 additional proposals - 10th Feb.
59
Table 13.0 presents a summary of the additional comments and suggestions
provided by the groups.
Table 13.0 Additional refinements and specific comments on the second composite
package 10th February - suggestions to increase levels of support within the groups. (G1 to
G8 = workshop group)
1. Retain, expand and improve the Market.





A bigger market zone is required with better visibility and provision for a market
hall. G3
The market should be extended east and west, and with additional weather
protection. G4
The market feels like a barrier at present even though there are routes through.
G6
The market needs a larger zone as its area of consideration so that improvement
and expansion can be planned, including a market hall in the mix. G6
The market requires strong north-south pedestrian routes if possible on the
ground and across Secklow Gate Bridge. It also needs good and clear east-west
routes on the ground. G7
2. Provide parking in several locations and in several forms.


The development east of John Lewis with an MSCP. 100% support G2
A MSCP at the east end as part of a development with other uses and access
from the V8 Marlborough Street. 100% support G3
 There should be a MSCP at the east end. G4
 Development of a car park east of John Lewis should include cultural uses. G5
 It is essential to maintain the overall supply of parking during implementation. G7
 There is currently a poor arrangement and distribution of disabled parking and
this should be improved. G7
 There should be access to any new MSCP at the east end direct from V8
Marlborough Street. G7
3. Create a series of Landmarks and gateways.







A west end gateway required. 100% support G2
There should be a landmark on the Point site. G3
There should be a west end gateway treatment. G3
The arrival point at the west end of the boulevard is neglected. G4
Landmarks are needed at both ends of MSBE. G6
The west end needs a sense of arrival at the heart of the city centre. G6
The east end needs a wider cultural offer to create a bigger draw with a landmark
feature. G6
 We need to concentrate cultural uses. G6
 There needs to be some form of landmark on the axis to Campbell Park. G7
4. Carefully extend the building lines both on the north and south sides in specific
locations.


Any building extensions need to have regard to heritage, design and the impact
on the quality of the public realm. G1
Support for new building lines and extensions on the north side, but why not also
on the south side of the boulevard. G2
60
Table 13.0…..continued.








The John Lewis flanks development was agreed but no general agreement for
new building lines elsewhere, especially if permanent. G3
There should be residential development at the east end. G4
Building lines should be also extended on the south side where this improves the
definition and enclosure of the “rooms”. Development around the Portes
Cocheres could reduce the apparent width of the boulevards. G4
On expansion of the Centre:MK, this team believes in “articulation” – not a
consistent building line. The extensions of the John Lewis flanks could come
forward of the existing building line. All should be in keeping with the existing
architectural style. G4
Mixed use south of the boulevard could include health care. G5
Expansion of the Centre:MK had a difference of view on whether and how it
should be done. G5
In the zone around John Lewis, buildings should come forward on the flanks at
least as far as the existing building line. Elsewhere the preference is for any new
buildings to be separated in space to retain the continuous façade. There was
some disagreement on this issue. G7
Building line extended on both sides of MBE. G8
5. Create a series of interlinked and themed outdoor rooms along the length of the
Boulevard.





The idea of “rooms” is great but the design and programming must be carefully
considered. G1
“Rooms” agreed by most in the group (8.5/10). They need to be related to the
uses in the buildings. G3
Really like the concept of “rooms”! G4
The concept of rooms was agreed. 100% support G5
Agree with character rooms approach. G8
6. Support the vibrancy of the Boulevard with a managed programme of events.

The arts and heritage community are happy and willing to help programming and
business modelling for a programme of events. G1
 The programme of uses and events needed. G6
 The programme of uses and events for the “rooms” should be used to drive the
form and design of the spaces. G7
7. Maintain but improve the existing circulation and movement network both northsouth and east-west.




There should be three north-south routes that are available 24/7 G2
There should be cycle hire facilities in the boulevard. G3
There was full support for the continued use of the existing circulation routes.
100% support G3
North-south routes are critical and at least one route at Secklow Gate should be
24/7. G4
The use of existing circulation routes should include at least one 24/7 north-south
route. 100% support G5
North\south routes to be 24/7. G8

Maintain movement system. G8


61
Table 13.0…..continued.
8. Provide a “beautiful” public transport interchange at Secklow gate.


The bus interchange should be bigger and on both sides of Secklow Gate. G3
A question was raised whether a bus interchange was needed at all, and if it was,
could it be on the high level bridge on Secklow Gate. G5
 CMK demands “the most beautiful bus interchange in the world”! G7
 Why not have bus pick up/drop off points on both sides of Secklow gate? G8
9. Ensure that development provides active edges to all public space along the
length of MBE.
 Critical to make the edges of the boulevard active. G1
 The mixed use development sites south of the boulevard and each side of
Secklow Gate should have active frontages all round. G3
 Needs active use on both sides. G8
10. Transform MBE in to a high quality public promenade.




The promenade needs to be able to draw people along the whole boulevard. G1
The promenade was agreed by all. 100% support G3
The idea of a public promenade was agreed. 100% support G5
High quality promenade. G8
11. Provide a transit route along MBE for advanced public transport solutions.





The transit should be high-tech. G1
Support for the transit route. 60% support G2
The transit route was agreed by all (not internal combustion engines). 100%
support. G3
The main boulevard should be a shared space used by the transit route. 100%
support G5
Range of public transport options and personal uses G8
Towards the end of this session of the workshop there was a specific
discussion in relation to the potential pedestrianisation of MBE. The general
conclusion on the accessibility of the Boulevard was that:
MBE will be a pedestrian dominated place, it will contain a transit route
available for advanced public transport solutions, have some parking
provision (especially for disabled users) and have shared access that
varies over time with other vehicles there by invitation only.
(Facilitator’s comment: it is suggested that this item is appended as an
additional item 12 to table 13.0).
Indicating the exact locations and positioning of these features was deemed
to be impossible at this stage in the design process and at the scale and
presentation format of the current composite proposal plans.
62
In conclusion, the second composite package was generally supported by the
workshop and should now be refined and expanded to contain the following
12 draft refined aspirations (DRAs) synthesised from the composite plans and
the items listed in table 13.0 and that reflect the participants’ additional
proposals for Midsummer Boulevard East, some of which were contained in
the first composite plan, as the basis for an initial outline development brief for
MBE.
These DRAs have been paraphrased here by the facilitator on behalf of the
workshop and so are presented in italics.
DRA1. Retain, expand and improve the Market.
DRA2. Provide parking (particularly for users with disabilities) in several
locations and in several forms - ground level and multi-storey.
DRA3. Create a series of landmarks and gateways at the western and eastern
end of MBE.
DRA4. Carefully extend the building lines both on the north and south sides in
specific locations.
DRA5. Create a series of interlinked and themed outdoor rooms along the
length of the Boulevard.
DRA6. Support the vibrancy of the Boulevard with a managed programme of
events.
DRA8. Provide a “beautiful” public transport interchange at Secklow gate.
DRA9. Ensure that development provides active edges to all public space
along the length of MBE.
DRA10. Transform MBE in to a high quality public promenade.
DRA11. Provide a transit route along MBE for advanced public transport
solutions.
DRA12. MBE will be a pedestrian dominated place with shared access that
varies over time with vehicles there by invitation only.
These draft refined aspirations should now be combined with the second
composite package to produce a third composite plan showing a more
specific spatial distribution of features. Numerous specific proposals made by
63
the participants that support the delivery of these aspirations can be found in
tables 8.0, 9.0, 12, and 13.0 above and can be used to provide more detail to
the third plan and provide a comprehensive outline brief that reflects the
participants common aspirations for the MBE of 2026.
64
5.0 Concluding comments and recommendations.
5.1
Conclusions.
Although the workshop was attended by a range of participants with diverse
views and objectives for the development of Midsummer Boulevard East the
outcomes in terms of desired qualities, design principles and strategic
proposals were narrow and well focused with a high degree of commonality
and support.
This was achieved through a collaborative process that has led to clear
guidance for the creation of an outline design and development brief for
Midsummer Boulevard East.
The summary results of the workshop are listed below – details can be found
above in the main text:

the specification of what makes a “good” place agreed through
the identification of 20 design and place qualities;

15 items of concern identified common to several stakeholder
perspectives;

the identification of the 20 strengths, 26 weaknesses and 28
opportunities that the development of MBE needs to address;

25 barriers that have to be overcome to ensure that the MBE can
be considered as a good place by 2026 were clearly identified;

8 initial proposal plans produced that contained 34 specific
emerging ideas and led to the formulation of 18 draft design
instructions to be addressed by a technical team;

The production by a technical team of a first draft composite
package of proposals on plan, containing 10 key ideas;

High levels of support for the first draft composite package;
65

8 refined proposal plans containing 35 additional refinements to
the original draft composite package of proposals to be
addressed by a technical team;

The production by a technical team of a second draft composite
package of proposals on plan, containing 13 key ideas;

Very high levels of support across the workshop for the second
composite package;

The listing of 65 comments as suggested refinements to the
second composite package that would increase the level of
support of the package.

The generation of 12 draft refined aspirations based on the
suggested refinement to the second composite package as the
basis of an outline brief for the development of Midsummer
Boulevard.
The workshop results should be used as a design rationale against which
further consideration can be given to specific proposals for the development
of Midsummer Boulevard East and against which the planning authority
stakeholders and community can verify subsequent detail proposals.
The workshops raised key emerging issues that require further consideration
in terms of policy, finance, maintenance and design implementation. These
are likely to affect the way in which the development at Midsummer Boulevard
East occurs. Many of these are beyond the scope of this report but should be
considered during the formulation of any outline brief and subsequent design
and development framework.
66
5.1
Facilitator’s recommendations.
Finally, in relation to observations made by the facilitator during the
workshops and during the formulation of this report there are eight key
recommendations;

Indicators for the specification of a good place should be
identified and agreed in order to audit proposals;

An outline development brief for the improvement of Midsummer
Boulevard to satisfy the growth of development planned to be
achieved by 2026 should be formulated from the results of the
workshop;

There should be a very clear, transparent and auditable link
between the outline brief and the results of this workshop;

The issues of political support, public and private sector
partnerships and long term maintenance must be addressed as
part of any long-term development package;

Several additional exciting ideas that were mentioned at the
workshops by individuals or single groups are worth
remembering and pursuing further:

The functions of MBE should be complementary to
the surrounding Milton Keynes central area;

Canopies over MBE – these could be used to
reinforce the legibility; memorability and usability of
outdoor rooms;

The establishment of a Business Improvement
District;

MBE as an exemplar of renewable energy;

The concept of “give some to get some” in terms of
public space only being given up for building
extensions in return for investment in improving the
public realm;

The setting up of a community trust;
67

Ensuring a long term and very regular arts/events
programme along MBE with a suitable events
business model;

The Bus Company is willing to move the location of
stops in response to the new and ambitious
proposals;


Concern that listed buildings are properly addressed.
the client(s) should consider how the momentum of the
collaborative workshops can inform a more comprehensive
strategy for on-going consultation and public participation.

the client should identify mechanisms for demonstrating to the
general public how the results of this workshop will inform
subsequent design;

a strong recommendation that all participants at the workshops
be issued with a copy of the final report.
Dr Jon Cooper.
February 2014.
68
Appendix A.
Essential information – background and context
material.
69
Slide 1
Planning policy context
Slide 2
NPPF
Presumption in favour of sustainable development. • Three dimensions to sustainable development: ‐ economic, social and environmental roles, working together. Key areas:
•
•
•
•
Slide 3
Ensuring the vitality of town centres Promoting sustainable transport Requiring good design Promoting healthy communities Milton Keynes Core Strategy, 2013 Primary Shopping Area (PSA) in CMK identified as a regional shopping centre…
• higher quality buildings and spaces around them with greater attention to human scale
range of travel options
more pedestrian friendly routes and spaces
Improved integration between parts of CMK
Identifies targets for new housing, office and retail development up to 2026. •
•
•
•
70
Slide 4
CMK Development Framework, 2013 Six areas of guidance:
• Protection of public realm infrastructure
• Heritage assets and public art
• Design guidance for new and redeveloped buildings • Access, movement & parking
• Key public spaces
• Land use and character areas
Midsummer Boulevard East should be seen as a key public space in terms of the pedestrian experience. Slide 5
Planning policy context
Slide 6
CMK Business Neighbourhood Plan The Plan seeks...
Delivery of the Core Strategy targets for development
Flexibility of land uses; promotes mixed use Improvements to public realm
Retention & improvement of public spaces
Diversification of the PSA – independent shops; covered market hall; expansion of cultural and community facilities
• Identifies Midsummer Boulevard East as an inset area for further design work
•
•
•
•
•
71
Slide 7
CMK Business Neighbourhood Plan Access, Transport and Parking Strategy: • Good provision for cars remains a competitive advantage for CMK, whilst encouraging a switch to walking, cycling and public transport eg interchange in retail core & CMK shuttle • Protect the CMK ‘classic’ infrastructure
• Enhance the pedestrian experience with active ground floor frontages • Protect existing movement corridors
• Improve safe, convenient and attractive access for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users. Slide 8
Physical
Slide 9
Area of Study
72
Slide 10
Physical Size of MBE
Slide 11
Physical Size of MBE
Slide 12
Champs Elysees, Paris Similar scale in two dimensions
Global city icon. Traffic and people
73
Slide 13
Stroget, Copenhagen Densest pedestrian flows in Europe
The Street as the heart of the city
Slide 14
Canary Wharf, London
Quality landscape and management
A procession of linked spaces
Slide 15
Exhibition Road, London
Shared space, open access for all
Cafes, museums, parking and traffic 74
Slide 16
Market Squares at Nottingham and Newark Slide 17
Slide 18
75
Slide 19
Gentler level changes opposite the Point
Gentler level changes for a short distance opposite the Theatre
Gentler level changes opposite the Point
Gentler level changes for a short distance opposite the Theatre
Slide 20
Ramps up to Secklow Gate
Ramps up to Secklow Gate Secklow Gate viewed from in front of Food Centre
Slide 21
Retaining wall in front of Food Centre
Sections Through Secklow Gate Bridge
76
Slide 22
Levels Across MBE
Slide 23
Slide 24
77
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
MBE Tree Plan
78
Slide 28
Connectivity of CMK Street Network
Slide 29
Existing Footpath Connections to Midsummer Boulevard East Slide 30
Parking
Between 10:00 – 16:00
Premium Parking around Centre MK
High of 97%
Saturday Dec 2013
Low of 66%
Sunday June 2013
79
Slide 31
Slide 32
Access & Movement Context
Brian Matthews, MKC Highways
Andrew Thomas, CMK Town Council
32
Slide 33
CMK Growth Expectations
Core Strategy & CMK Alliance Plan
Today
2026
Increase
Dwellings
2,000
7,000
5,000
Residents
3,000
10,000 – 14,000
7,000 – 10,000
Students
200
2,000 ‐ 5,000
2,000 – 5,000
Jobs (workers)/day
30,000
45,000 ‐ 50,000 15,000 ‐ 25,000
Visitors/day
100,000
130,000 ‐ 150,000
30,000 – 50,000
80
Slide 34
Potential Areas of Growth in CMK
CMK Alliance Plan
A
B
C
D
E
1
2
G
H
2,000 1,500
700
6,500*
30,000
3
4
F
400
800
900
4,000 new workers
1,700
300
600 5,000 2,000
1,500
400
500
600
600
>30,000 more visitors
4,000 new retail jobs
10,000 new workers
* Includes Network Rail
New office‐jobs
New retail jobs
toward end of plan period
New visitors (per day)
Slide 35
University students & staff (excluding new dwellings)
Implications of Growth: Challenges for Access & Movement
• How will workers & visitors travel to CMK and within CMK ?
Challenges for:
– Parking spaces
– Highways & junctions
– Public transport (e.g. bus; rail; other)
– Social Inclusion
– Cycling/walking
• Spatial implications
–
–
–
–
Slide 36
Space for wider roads and/or junctions (for more cars & buses)
Space for pavements (for more pedestrians)
Number & spacing of bus stops (for more buses)
Routing of buses (for more buses)
Traffic Queues 2009
36
81
Slide 37
Traffic Queues 2026
37
Slide 38
I MPLICAT ION S OF G ROW T H
H OW
DO
W O RKERS T RAVEL I N TO CMK?
‘M O DAL SPLIT ’
Modal Split
• 2001 7% by bus; 77% by car
• 2011 10% by bus; 75% by car
• 2026 ?? Slide 39
38
Implications of Growth How do Workers Travel Into CMK?
2001
2026 Scenario 1
2026 Scenario 2
45,000
40,000
35,000
Modal Split:
30,000
All Other
25,000
Walk/Cycle
20,000
Bus
15,000
Car (Driver)
Car (Passenger)
10,000
5,000
‐
10% by Bus
25,000 workers
10% by Bus
50,000 workers
25% by Bus
50,000 workers
39
82
Slide 40
I MPLICAT IO N S O F G ROW T H FO R PARKIN G
N U MBER OF PARKIN G SPACES IN CMK
25,000
Additional parking by 2026 (through expected development)
• Office blocks = 3,000 – 4,000 • Retail blocks = 1,500 ‐ 2,000 • Total parking spaces in CMK in 2026 ‐> 30,000 – 35,000
40
* Excludes residential parking
Slide 41
Implications of Growth for Parking
Visitors & Dwell Time
• 100,000 visitors /day require how many parking spaces?
• The answer depends on:
– Proportion using cars versus bus/other means
– Average number of passengers per car
– “Dwell time” (time spent shopping or visiting) • Example:
– 100,000 visitors between 10am – 4pm, 90% by car, 2 passengers per car and…
• dwell time of 1 hour => 7,500 parking spaces
• dwell time increases to 2 hours => 15,000 parking spaces
 Increasing dwell time increases demand for parking spaces
41
Slide 42
Implications of Growth for Highways
Limited Highway Capacity
•
Grid roads surrounding CMK, together with distributor roads within CMK, were designed to support a city centre of 28,500 jobs
•
The capacity of grid road junctions can only be increased by 25% through interventions such as adding an additional carriageway, widening roundabouts or adding part‐time signals
42
83
Slide 43
I MPLICAT ION S OF G ROW T H
FOR
H IGH W AYS
C ON ST RAIN T S OF EX IST IN G ROAD LAYOUT
43
Slide 44
I MPLICAT ION S O F G ROW T H FO R BU SES
BUS RO U T ES & BU S STO PS IN CMK
The Point (area 3)
• Today – 10 bus stops; 100 buses per hour
• 2026 (Scenario 1) – 20 bus stops; 200 buses per hour needed? • 2026 (Scenario 2) – ? bus stops; 500 buses per hour needed?
44
Slide 45
I MPLICAT ION S O F G ROW T H FO R BU SES
BUS RO U T ES & BU S STO PS IN CMK
Accessibility Considerations
• 400m bus stop catchments is considered the desirable spacing
• Current pattern of stops means that the whole of CMK is with 400m of one of the 5 groups of stops.
45
84
Slide 46
I MPLICAT ION S O F G ROW T H FO R BU SES
BU S I N T ERCH AN GE AT SECKLOW GAT E
Replacing the The Point and Food Centre stop groups with one location at Secklow Gate/Avebury Blvd gives 400m stop catchments as shown above ‐ this shows that the proposal reduces accessibility to CMK overall, especially to the area shown in pink which includes Civic Offices and the Library. NB: does not consider alternative bus routes or shuttle bus
Slide 47
46
Public Transport Improvements?
Current bus, at peak times carries about 30 people
Car occupancy in MK is about 1.16 per vehicle
1 bus carries equivalent to 26 cars
Transport Policy Section - Milton Keynes
Council
05/03/2014
Slide 48
Improved Public Transport?
New buses can carry up
to 83 car loads!
6 per hour potentially
removes 500 cars
05/03/2014
Transport Policy Section - Milton Keynes
Council
85
Slide 49
On‐Demand Services – via smaller vehicles
49
Slide 50
Use of Autonomous Pods within CMK?
50
Slide 51
Implications of Growth: Challenges for Access & Movement
SUMMARY
• Significant growth planned for CMK (regional city centre)
• Implications for how workers & visitors travel to CMK and within CMK –
–
–
–
–
•
Parking spaces
Highways & junctions
Public transport (e.g. bus; rail; other)
Social Inclusion
Cycling/walking
Spatial implications for CMK and Midsummer Blvd East (MBE)
–
–
–
–
–
Space for wider roads and/or junctions (for more cars & buses) ?
Space for pavements (for more pedestrians) ?
Number & spacing of bus stops (for more buses) ?
Routing of buses (for more buses) ?
Other public transport options ?
86
Slide 52
Visitor Context
Lawrence Revill, David Lock Associates
Slide 53
Other major shopping centres much
lower - Bluewater (8%), Trafford
Centre (5%), Meadowhall (13%)
Milton Keynes Catchment
• 6th most affluent in UK
• Catchment population (Source CACI 2012)
– 3.2m population
– 532,707 within the core catchment
• City centre provides 19% of retail provision within the primary area (Source Javelin 2011)
• Population under 34 almost 1/3 higher than UK benchmark (Source Javelin 2011)
• Comparison Goods potential of £1bn increasing to £2bn when catering and leisure added (Source CACI2012)
Slide 54
Centre:MK Standing
• Centre:MK ranks 17th as a retail centre nationally (Source CACI 2012)
• Ranks 2nd in the region (Source CACI 2012)
• High visitor frequency (Source CACI 2012)
• Centre:MK is 77% of CMK retail floorspace (Source Javelin 2011)
87
Slide 55
Slide 56
Age and Affluence within a 61‐90 min drivetime
Centre:MK Visitors
27 million visits per annum
55% people arrive by car
Average age is 38
Average 74 visits per year per visitor (very high) (Source CACI 2012)
• For every meal in the evening, there are 3.5 at lunchtime
•
•
•
•
Slide 57
Busy‐ness
Q2 2013
88
Slide 58
MK Gallery Visitors
• Circa 20,000 per annum (18,055 visitors 2011/12)
– Modern Art Oxford – 95,000
– Nottingham Contemporary – 237,000
• 120,000 (est) potential visitors within the 30 min drive catchment
Slide 59
Slide 60
MK Theatre Visitors
•
•
•
•
Circa 350,000 per annum
Circa 320 shows
50% MK postcodes…..
…..rest within 45 min drive time
89
Appendix B.
Stakeholder perspective papers.
90
INTU – Perspectives & Aspirations
101
Hermes Five Principles
1. There is a sense of collective ownership of Central Milton Keynes and
Centre:MK and an active interest in the future development of the city centre.
We are keen to work with the Council and stakeholders to unlock the potential
for long-term, sustainable investment for the future;
2. Our vision is for the city centre to be a regional destination that integrates a
diverse range of experiences which collectively act as a more powerful draw
than they do individually, but without losing the unique character of Central
Milton Keynes. We want to create more reasons for people to come to, and
remain in, the city centre with a richness of leisure and cultural experiences
and an improved retail offer. We believe this should involve the more effective
integration of the core retail area (Centre:MK and Midsummer Place) with the
MK Gallery, the Theatre, the Theatre District, Xscape and a variety of places
to eat and drink. Midsummer Boulevard could be a lynchpin in this vision by
becoming the “glue” between the various land uses. This would include the
Food Centre which occupies an important central position on the Boulevard
and needs a sustainable and commercially viable solution for the future;
3. Public transport and cars are important for accessibility but should be
complimented by a visible volume of footfall exploring the city centre. The
Boulevard could become a vibrant heart to the city centre if it provides for both
elements but acts as less of a barrier which divides the buildings and their
activities. Customer feedback informs us that car parking is one of the biggest
single issues in CMK in terms of way-finding, availability of spaces and the
charging regime, hence we believe that a more sustainable solution is
required;
4. We wish to attract a broader range of retailers from value operators to
premium brands to Centre:MK in order to improve Milton Keynes’ retail offer.
This is widely accepted in principle but has been difficult to resolve in detail,
principally due to the changing demands of occupiers. Therefore flexibility is
required to accommodate current and future demand of the retail and leisure
markets to ensure that the city centre remains the focus for retail and leisure
activity;
5. The market is also an important part of CMK’s overall retail offer and we want
to see it improved so that it can become a stronger anchor as well as a
successful incubator for new retail businesses.
98
110
Appendix C.
Public Exhibition: Summary of Comments.
NOTE: The following tables and analyses include all comments received in response
to the public exhibition on 31 January and 1 February.
Please note that these tables are an updated version of the papers distributed at the
Workshop – this is because an additional 20-25 responses submitted to the Council
after the exhibition have now been included and the tables have been re-formatted to
present the data more clearly.
111
MBE Public Exhibition: Analysis of Comments
Question 1:
Like Question 2: Don't Like Questions 3: Improvements Total Market 15 6 20 41 Design 16 8 16 40 Public transport 7 4 19 30 Shopping experience 6 5 12 23 The Point 6 9 4 19 Public square 1 2 12 15 Access 6 5 4 15 Young people Midsummer Place (Atrium) Pedestrian experience 2 2 10 14 1 10 3 14 3 3 6 12 Parking 2 4 6 12 Food Centre 1 5 4 10 Maintenance 2 4 2 8 Cycling 0 4 3 7 Leisure experience 1 1 2 4 Campbell Park 1 1 1 3 Signage 0 0 3 3 Misc 0 0 3 3 Safe 2 0 0 2 Theatre District 0 2 0 2 72 75 130 277 Topic/Theme Total 112
Public Exhibition: Summary of Comments*
Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like and think works well about MBE today? Market 15 positive comments 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.14, 1.15, (41 comments) 1.16, 1.18, 1.20, 1.28, 1.30, 1.32, 1.39, 1.42, 1.48, diversity, variety, good location, valuable resource Design 16 positive comments 1.16, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.22, (40 comments) 1.29, 1.33, 1.35, 1.40, 1.41, 1.43, 1.45, 1.47, 1.50, 3.45, 3.66 spacious, open, light, trees, keep 'as is' Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be improved)? 6 negative comments 20 comments 2.29, 2.9, 2.34, 2.37, 4.3, 4.7 3.14, 3.16, 3.18, 3.2, 3.21, 3.29, 3.33, 3.43, 3.48, 3.5, 3.54, 3.56, 3.8, 3.64, 3.65, 3.66, 4.2, 4.5, 4.6, unattractive, looks tired and grubby, 4.20 dated, depressing dark environment under Preserve and enhance market, improve bridge, should be moved appearance, better lighting, bigger market and covered/indoor, investment needed and public toilets, modernise it, add antique/crafts markets, need good permanent stalls and fish market, mini‐market stalls in MSP; night market 8 negative comments 16 comments 2.21, 2.30, 2.32, 2.36, 2.38, 2.12, 2.3, 3.61 3.13, 3.14, 3.23, 3.33, 3.34, 3.46, 3.58, 3.61, 3.62, 3.64, 3.65, 4.2, 4.7, 4.13, 4.21, 4.23 fairly ugly, not visually appealling area, more evergreen trees/shrubs ‐ MBE looks great in exposed, disjointed, no public seating, too summer but bleak in winter, more landscaping much road space, large spaces between and less busy, replace dead Oak tree with another buildings with roads and parking in tree, more floral displays, more seating, more between, no public toilets esp eastern end, indoor seating, small park for lunch time eaters, not much landscaping (greenery/flowers); CMK needs a central garden, more art and area should not be a 'barricade' one side sculptures, better leisure (informal and of the city centre from another, especially commercial), MBE needs to be developed as a after closing time whole, overarching vision ‐ not piecemeal development, improve vibrancy with shops opening doors onto MBE again, more enticing shop windows; convert boulevard to park area 113
Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate
Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like and think works well about MBE today? Public 7 positive comments transport 1.15, 1.17, 1.26, 1.29, 1.31, 1.36, 1.45 (30 comments) bus stops nearby (but not easy to find right one), no cars hindering buses Shopping experience (23 comments) 6 positive comments 1.4, 1.23, 1.25, 1.38, 1.8, 4.7 easy to find shops, nice variety/range of shops Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be improved)? 19 comments 4 negative comments 3.10, 3.62, 3.14, 3.15, 3.17, 3.19, 3.24, 3.38, 3.39, 2.14, 2.18, 2.29, 2.31 3.41, 3.52, 3.56, 3.8, 3.64, 3.65, 3.66, 4.1, 4.11, public transport stops at MSP ‐ put No7 4.23 a bus interchange with facilities ‐ not terrible bus bus through it straight line, bus route shelters at Food Centre end, open up MSP for ridiculous not being able to travel in electric buses, better facilities needed for bus straight line, bus access should be lower users, bus station where it will be warm and dry, speed, don't like bus interchange with shops, toilets, RTPI, etc; need a tramway, need dedicated transport service from train station to Coachway, make sure bus areas work for disabled people; suspended monorail 5 negative comments 12 comments 1.37, 1.49, 2.6, 2.8, 2.20 3.65, 3.1, 3.11, 3.2, 3.37, 3.44, 3.46, 3.54, 3.57, very bored to see same shops, chain 3.66, 4.5, 4.6 stores, need more variety, nothing special same old food chains ‐ more interesting food here, providers and specialist shops instead, need to subsidise the rent and service charge so local shops and young people can earn a living, more specialist shops ‐ deli's, farmer's market, arts and crafts, more boutique and individual stores subsidised by larger stores, set‐up units for charities on a rotational basis, another department store/Primark but not at expense of market/Secklow Gate; 24‐hr shopping centre; play music whilst shopping 114
Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate
Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like and think works well about MBE today? The Point 6 positive comments 1.12, 4.2, 4.4, 4.19, 3.66, (19 comments) 3.62, it's iconic, keep it; retain as one of the few icons in MK; it's a landmark; retain and restore it and re‐open it for a new use Public square 1 positive comment 1.21 (15 responses) Middleton Hall is great civic space Access 6 positive comments 1.41, 1.1, 1.3, 1.19, 3.66, 4.2 (15 comments) easy road access, keep Secklow Bridge open Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be improved)? 9 negative comments 4 comments 2.11, 2.14, 2.21, 2.22, 2.25, 2.29, 2.7, 3.21, 3.53, 3.55, 3.64, 4.14 4.5, the Point is looking tired ‐ it's iconic but can we has become an eyesore, needs a make‐
make it look better, improve the Point, retain at over, has been left to deteriorate, worn & least the profile; give us an iconic building to tired, blow it up replace the Point 2 negative comments 2.12, 3.65 already have city square near M&S (but not allowed to use it as public meeting place); we already have a disproportionate number of apparent 'undesirables' near McDonalds so why expand the area? 12 comments 3.9, 3.12, 3.23, 3.59, 3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.63, 3.66, 4.19,4.20, 4.25 a city square would be good as long as it has trees, shrubs, flowers and water feature, street entertainers and vendors, choirs, dancers, bands, buskers, gymnasts; maybe some more communal areas with more cover for weather, like idea of square; no single commercial interest should be allowed to dictate use of public square; need truly public space for leafletting, petitioning, etc ‐ valuable civic freedoms 5 negative comments 4 comments 2.1, 2.24, 2.7, 2.8, 2.29 3.63, 3.42, 3.23, 4.13 Need drop‐off point for car users to pick‐up kids Don't like west end being cut off to etc; retain segregated carriageways and trees but vehicles, don't like lack of a right turn onto narrow to just accommodate public transport and MBE from Secklow, serious mistake to pedestrians, relocate market so Secklow Bridge block off MBE, don't like traffic can close, east‐west traffic light timings have very 115
Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate
Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look and think works well about don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be MBE today? improved)? brief timings; better roads Young people 2 positive comments 1.15, 1.29 (14 comments) child friendly, good places for young people to get together near McDonalds & MSP 2 negative comments 2.18, 4.6 don't like congregation of youngsters around McDonalds; no skateboarders ‐ put skateboard park in Campbell Park not city centre Midsummer Place (Atrium)
(14 comments) 1 positive comment 1.24, Lovely & spacious, useful for lunchbreaks in summer Pedestrian experience (12 responses) 3 positive comments 1.44, 1.46, 1.35 pedestrian‐free thru MSP, traffic free inside thecentre:mk, no worry with 10 negative comments 2.12, 2.13, 2.2, 2.25, 2.26, 2.28, 2.8, 2.32, 2.33, 2.36, windy, rainy gap between shopping areas, too cold in MSP, it's a icebox, we just rush through, canopy has not made this pleasant place, 3 negative comments 2.22, 2.38, 2.30, not enough cover for pedestrians walking to furthest car parks, colonnades frequently in use by smokers, dangerous 10 comments 3.12, 3.22, 3,25, 3.3, 3.31, 3.6, 3.6, 3.35. 1.8, 1.13, Need seating area for young people to hang out, areas for children to play like Willen Lake; a skatepark and somewhere where people can sit and watch the skateboarders; youth club; university to breathe life into the area; add fun stuff for kids 0‐12, make a 360 play area for kids 3 comments 3.36, 3.5, 4.5 doors or more shelter would be useful, get heating; don't mind if fill in with shops 6 comments 3.14, 3.56, 3.49, 3.4, 4.1, 4.9 more shelter from wind and rain, pedestrianise in front of the Point, put in zebra crossings, more north‐south pedestrian access; retain pedestrian 116
Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate
Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like Question 2: What do you dislike and and think works well about don't think works well about MBE today? MBE today? children running around crossing for pedestrians who have priority in car parking areas but not across boulevards Parking 2 positive comments 1.15, 1.37 (12 comments) like nearby free parking for quick shops, good large carpark Food Centre 1 positive comment 4.4 (10 comments) Don't get rid of Food Centre as it is so loved by all Maintenance (8 comments) 2 positive comments 1.29, 1.41 lack of litter, clean Question 3: How would you like MBE to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved)? access through MSP; need pedestrian x‐ing from centre to library 4 negative comments 2.15, 3.49, 4.5, 4.7, More free parking needed; Northampton is free all day; nowhere near enough parking 6 comments 3.44, 3.48, 3.54, 3.65, 3.66, 4.18 2 hours free parking works in Bedford, underground (free) parking, more free parking, parking system costing the shops more than any other problem, need another MSCP (possibly behind JL); attractive parking prices 5 negative comments 4 comments 2.14, 2.21, 2.34, 3.21, 3.54 3.64, 3.33, 3.66, 3.35 Food centre is a disaster, it's a white Food centre issue needs to be resolved as prelude elephant, Sainsburys blocking rivals, knock to further planning, find new uses for Food it down ‐ was always a flawed design, no Centre, needs a major reburbishment, replace longer what is says on the can with market square with unique and independent retailers 4 negative comments 2 comments 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.38 3.55, 3.66 Porte cocheres need painting, old and improve main area, particularly road and bus dated, looks messy, needs refurbishing, area, roads and car parks in need of repair and bushes trap rubbish & rats, uneven resurfacing footpath levels 117
Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate
Topic/Theme Cycling (7 comments) Question 1: What do you like Question 2: What do you dislike and and think works well about don't think works well about MBE today? MBE today? 0 positive comments 4 negative comments 2.16, 2.17, 2.34, 2.35 cycle route disappears, difficult access for cyclists Leisure experience (4 comments) Campbell Park
(3 comments) Signage (3 comments) 1 positive comment 1.29 choice of fast food outlets 1 positive comment 1.27 like the Park 1 negative comment 3.3 more shops and less restaurants and phone shops 1 negative comment 2.37 gateway to Campbell Park is poor Misc (3 comments) Question 3: How would you like MBE to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved)? 3 comments 3.6, 3.63, 3.4 Redways should penetrate this area to improve connectivity and inclusivity, cyclists should be allowed to cycle between MSP and thecentre:mk, more accessibility for cyclists 2 comments 3.3, 3.47, More entertainment, nice wine bars 1 comment 3.63 Gateway bridge to Campbell Park much wider 3 comments 3.28, 3.32, 3.33 better sign‐posting for public toilets in shopping centres, more clear signage coming out of town, no clear directions to actual shopping building 3 comments 4.22, 4.16, 3.64, development of art gallery needs special consideration; nice to improve area but if public expenditure is involved in this era of austerity, more important to provide essential services; pressure groups seem to over‐rule council 118
Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate
Topic/Theme Safe (2 comments) Theatre District (2 comments) Question 1: What do you like and think works well about MBE today? 2 comments 1.2, 1.3 police presence, relatively safe Question 2: What do you dislike and Question 3: How would you like MBE to look don't think works well about MBE today? and function in the future (or how could it be improved)? 2 comments 2.14, 3.64 Theatre District looks grim and desolate, Theatre District is a huddle of buildings and a badly designed car park 119
Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate
MBE Public Exhibition: All Comments
Access Access Question 1: What do you like and think works well about Midsummer Blvd East today? 1,41 Easy road access, allowing effective public transport access. 1.1 Keep Secklow Gate Bridge open Access 1.3 Access Campbell Park 1,19 Shutting Secklow Gate Bridge is a silly idea Design 1,34 Design 1.16 Design Design Design 1.9 1,10 1,11 Design 1,22 Design Design 1,27 1,29 Design 1,33 I love the bridge through the centre of the centre Design 1,33 I love the open area, the trees, the space, the light. Design 1,35 Design 1,40 Design 1,41 Design Design Design 1,43 1,45 1,47 Design 1,50 Topic Leisure experience Maintenanc
e Maintenanc
e No. Ease of movement. 1,27 Campbell Park This place needs more glass to cover area and need more light and warmth and more new things to be more active Like trees, but bushes trap rubbish & rats & homeless people Good shopping centre. Good! Keep it up! Its open and airy! I like as it is, I think overall work well! It's open and welcoming ‐ you don't feel claustrophobic at all. V. modern Entrance to Midsummer Place ‐ Summer Solstice Axis Spacious Post code MK9 2PT NN10 8TS MK3 6BL MK46 MK6 2HX
MK3 6JA MK46 OX16 MK15 8PL MK15 8PL Like it the way it is ‐ so many places to eat and chill out and MK9 3LQ
shop as well Wide open space. Good visibility. Great access to buses, PO13 good parking layout. 9QP Has a special feel to it as it is not closely encroached upon MK9 2PT by surrounding buildings. Big, light, wide open spaces ‐ do not close them off Trees in spring or autumn MK6 2SS The trees, the trees, the trees… must be retained Tree‐lined boulevard is a feature. Traffic moves easily along MK12 it. 1,29 Choice of fast food outlets OX16 1,29 Lack of litter OX16 1,41 Clean & well presented. Market 1.3 Leave the market. Market 1.5 Like the Market MK9 2PT NN10 8TS MK6 2 120
Topic Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Misc MSP Parking parking Parking Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Question 1: What do you like and think works well about Midsummer Blvd East today? My parents go to the market every week. It is closed on 1.6 Monday and Wednesday. We would like it to be open at least one of the days. Everything. The market is a good place to get shopping 1.7 which the stores do not and it is in a key place for the traders. 1,14 The market is find as it is. No. Post code MK13 8ES MK14 1,15 Market 5HX 1,16 The Market MK6 2HX
1,18 The Market is good where it is Like to keep MK Market & leave it where it is ‐ keep it as big MK15 1,20 as it is 8PO 1,28 The Market MK15 1,30 The Market but not location MK13 1,32 The Market 8ES The Market is fantastic. Love the diversity, different smells, 1,39 variety of produce, bargains. You can buy anything in the MK15 market. 1,42 The Market The Market is a valuable resource for myself and public at large. It complements the (largely) chain stores and is only MK8 1,48 source of fruit and vegetables and small daily items (apart 8DN from M&S) now Sainsbury, waitrose have left centre. The Shopping Centre doors are locked and this was 1,19 MK3 6BL extremely against the original concept ‐ Open it! It's lovely & spacious ‐ especially in the summer. The café's MK46 1,24 & newsagents is very useful for lunchbreaks. 5PW MK14 1,15 Nearby free parking space for quick calls. 5HX MK14 1,15 Good large car park for longer stays, always with space. 5HX 1,37 Free parking for retail staff like in USA The pedestrianisation works well but do not like the buses 1,44 MK4 3FN
coming through as they tend to travel too fast Having the whole shopping centre free of traffic is great for everyone, especially families as they can relax. Traffic 1,46 MK3 7EL through Midsummer Place is a bad idea. I think it would put people off from visiting. Like not having to worry about children running around 1,35 where there are cars and buses (inside Midsummer Place) ‐ MK9 3LQ
v. nice in summer 121
Topic Public square / space Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Safe Safe Question 1: What do you like and think works well about Midsummer Blvd East today? Middleton Hall is a splendid civic square for more practical 1,21 use in this climate. Do NOT allow any more encroachent on it. It is served by public transport, which I use frequently (for shops, services and cinema). It provides an undercover 1,48 external access, less crowded therefore quicker from one end to the other. No. 1,15 Bus stops near (but not always easy to find the right one) Reinstate the "Reserved Traffic corridor" for the use of electric vehicles. Buses available on Midsummer Blvd, in both directions, 1,26 important to keep this feature even if an interchange is planned elsewhere 1,17 1,29 The bus stops along the Boulevard 1,31 Closure to vehicle traffic but still access to public transport Excellent roads for buses only, no cars clogging the flow of public transport I guess, for bus users, it's a handy focus for buses. I've 1,45 never had any particular thoughts or feelings about it. 1.2 Police[?] 1,36 1.3 Relatively safe. 1.4 It's easy to find different shops. Post code MK3 6BL MK8 8DN MK14 5HX MK15 0BD MK9 3AR
MK15 MK6 2SS NN10 8TS Shopping experience Shopping experience shopping experience 1,23 Nice variety of shops 1,25 Good range of shops/cafes. Well ventilated in summer. Shopping experience A low rent retail area should be set aside for a variety of 1,37 independent outlets. And very bored to see the same shops whenever we go. More variety 1,38 Variety of shops and food outlets Shopping experience Shopping experience The Point Young people Young people Young Not much. I've never been a fan of the Midsummer Place retail development. 1,12 The Point is iconic. This shopping centre is so good. Add fun stuff for kids ages 1.8 0‐12. 1,49 1,13 Make a 360 Play Area for kids 1,15 Good places for young people to get together by MK8 8DN MK14 122
Topic people Young people No. Question 1: What do you like and think works well about Midsummer Blvd East today? McDonalds and Point, as well as Midsummer Arcade 1,29 Child friendly Post code 5HX OX16 123
Question 2 What do you dislike and don't think works well about Midsummer Blvd East today? I don't like the lack of a right turn coming up from the South onto Midsummer Blvd Topic No. Access 2.1 Access 2.1 Access 2.24 Access 2.7 Access 2.8 Cycling 2.16 Cycling 2.17 Cycling 2,34 Cycling 2.35 Design Design 2.21 2,30 Design 2,32 Design 2.36 Design 2.37 Design 2.38 Design 2.38 Design 2.12 Not much landscaping etc so rather bleak atmosphere Design 2.19 I don't like the West End being closed off to vehicles It was a serious mistake to block Midsummer Blvd. It is a draughty place with few people in it It seems a 'nothing.' You cannot drive down it as you once could. Midsummer Blvd was cut in half by Midsummer Place. Getting around by car & bus was made more convoluted. Dedicated cycle route disappears and the pavements are cracked and wobbly if you cycle on them. The road is full of 'no awareness of cyclists' drivers. Better redways into and through area (e.g. what happens to route 51 when you get through Campbell Park Difficult access for cyclists. No redway links extend through this area which diminishes the connectivity from the perspective of cyclists; an inclusionary environment which facilitates alternative ways of getting around is inherently better in terms of creating active, animated and commercially sustainable places. Fairly ugly. It is not a visually appealing area. Exposed. Disjointed. Public seating ‐ have to go into food outlets if you want to sit down To the east, there is too much road space. It is very motor transport hungry. Large spaces between buildings, with roads and parking in between. The result is poor for pedestrians and cyclists. Campbell Park gateway is poor. There is no public toilet readily accessible in the area, especially at eastern end. Colonnades are frequently in use by smokers. Design There isn't much greenergy around. It's all a little grey. The spacing between features is good, but yeah, a bit dull. Please landscape the sundial area at the front of 2.23 Midsummer Place 2.3 There isn't enough to look at ie. Flowers / trees etc Food Centre 2.14 Food Centre is a disaster. Food Centre Food Centre 2.21 Food Centre has become a white elephant. 2,34 Dysfunction of Food Centre area due to Sainsburys blocking Design Post code MK15 8PL MK15 8PL MK3 6BL MK14 5DU MK15 MK3 7RE MK12 5NJ MK6 2SS OX16 MK8 8DN
MK12 MK8 8DN
MK8 8DN
MK14 5HX MK14 5HJ MK6 2SS MK3 7RE 124
Market Question 2 What do you dislike and don't think works well about Midsummer Blvd East today? use by rivals The Porte cochere 'bridges' need painting! City centre 2.4 needs maintenance. Other cities look tidy and neat ‐ it doesn't take much to do that. Just the will from city hall. 2.5 To old and dated. Road to many accidents. 2.6 Area looking messy, worn out, needs refurbishing. 2.6 Bushes trap rubbish/rats/homeless people The levels of footpath surfaces are hard to negotiate safely 2.38 for people with mobility or vision impairment. Also a number of badly cracked flagstones. 2.29 Market is tired and grubby. Market 2.9 Market 2,34 Market 2.37 Misc 2.25 misc Misc 2.27 2.10, MSP 2.12 MSP 2.13 The cold in winter & when the rain leaks on the floor. MSP MSP MSP MSP 2.2 2.25 2.26 2.28 MSP 2.8 MSP MSP 2,32 2,33 MSP 2.36 Parking 2.15 Pedestrians 2.22 Pedestrians 2,30 Topic Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance No. Market should be bigger Market area depressing because of raised road producing dark environment The market is unattractive & poor quality of environment for customers. Collectomania show in Middleton Hall was moved to Stadium ‐ should be back in Middleton Hall. Nothing Nothing Windy, rainy gap between shopping areas ‐ needs more shelter. It's too cold. Should have heating. Don't like open air/cold of Midsummer Place. Cold shopping centre in winter. No trees. Midsummer is much too cold. We just rush through. Midsummer Place is an icebox, open to the elements on one side. Cold in the winter To cold The shopping building. Midsummer Place is not a patch on the original shopping building and the canopy feature ‐ heavy as a piece of architecture hasn't made this a particularly pleasant place for pedestrians. More free parking needed Not enough cover for pedestrians walking from furthest car parks. Very dangerous and unclear crossing points for pedestrians who currently seem to have priority when crossing car parking areas but no priority when continuing across roadways. This is frequently ignored by groups of Post code MK6 2HX
MK6 2HX
MK6 2HX
MK8 8DN
MK46 NN10 8ES MK3 7RE MK12 MK3 6JA MK14 5HX MK46 5PW MK14 MK14 5DU OX16 MK8 8DN
PO13 9QP 125
Topic No. Question 2 What do you dislike and don't think works well about Midsummer Blvd East today? pedestrians and often motorists stop anyway thus adding to the confusion. This needs sorting. Post code Too much squeezed into 1 area. We already have a 'city MK14 Public square 2.12 square' ‐ north side of M&S which is nicely laid out but we 5HX aren't allowed to use it as a public meeting place. Public It stops at Midsummer Place. Put the No.7 bus through in a MK14 2.14 transport straight line to the station. 5HJ Public 2.18 The bus access should be lower speed limit. MK4 3FN transport Public 2.29 Traffic, bus interchange. MK46 transport The Bus route is ridiculous ‐ instead of being able to travel Public in a straight line from Campbell Park to Saxon Gate & the MK14 2,31 transport MK Station ‐ the bus has to travel through several traffic 5DZ lights ‐ painful & not necessary. If I live in Northampton (or anywhere) ‐ why should I come Shopping 2.6 to CMK? They have Primarks, M&S, etc ‐ nothing special MK6 2HX
experience here. Shopping Midsummer Place contains no shops of interest to anyone MK14 2.8 experience but fashionistas (apart from Waterstones) 5DU Shopping It's all chain stores ‐ little individuality ‐ neet to get new MK16 2.20, experience stores ‐ local people. 0HA The Park and Ride signage is completely missing at CMK and Signage 2,30 this too much be remedied with clearly marked signage at each end of MSB. The Point 2.11 Don't like the point they have let it go MK14 The Point 2.14 Point' needs a truly imaginative make‐over 5HJ The Point 2.21 Point has become an eyesore and looks unsavory. MK6 2SS That God awful cinema that looks like they forgot to PO13 The Point 2.22 remove the scaffolding! 9QP The Point 2.25 The Point has been left to deteriorate. The Point 2.29 The Point, worn & v. tired. MK46 The Point 2.7 The Point seems almost derelict to what it once was. Theatre MK14 2.14 Theatre District is grim and desolate District 5HJ Young Don't like the congregation of youngsters around 2.18 MK4 3FN people McDonalds and the point 126
Topic Access 3,42 Access Cycling 3,66 3,60 Cycling 3,63 Design 3,13 Design 3,14 Design Design Design 3,23 3,33 3,34 Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in Post the future (or how could it be improved? codes East‐West traffic light timings both on MBE & adjacent MK9 2PT roads have very brief timings. Secklow Gate Bridge should be kept open. Redway links should penetrade this area of CMK to improve MK12 connectivity and inclusivity. All things being equal this will 5NJ make the area more active and commercially sustainable. As state in the original CMK Development Framework [EDAW, 2001], although Milton Keynes has a well‐design Redway cycle network, the system does not extend well into CMK. Notwithstanding some partial improvements [e.g. completion of north‐south Saxon Gate Redway linkage], cycling through CMK, therefore, remains unduly hazardous; the aspiration of creating an environment where cyclists can more safely share carriageways with motor vehicles throughout the city centre [i.e. as cit in the CMK Development Framework] has not, as yet, been realised. The environs of Midsummer Boulevard East do not have good connections to the Redway network; simply put, it has poor 'connectivity' [see Redway map attached]. Given the above context, the opportunity should now be grasped, via the CMK PSA & Environs Masterplan, to complete the 'cruciform' [i.e. a Redway running up Midsummer Boulevard within the central median] and to better link with other strategic Redways arriving in CMK [e.g. H5, H6, V6, and V8]. Such an approach would be entirely consistent with Poicy T1 [The Transport User Hierarchy] of the MK Local Plan [Adopted 2005] and also 'fit' with MKC's low‐carbon agendas/aspirations. Pursuing and implementing such measures along Midsummer Boulevard East will provide the best opportunity of providing genuine transport choice and the potential for modal shift through the creation of a safe environment for cyclists. Significantly, such an approach will make for a more inclusive environment, and, by improving connectivity will make for a more animated, active and commercially viable 'quarter' of CMK. Cyclists should be allowed to cycle between Midsummer MK12 Place and centre:mk or very near. More evergreen trees/plants ‐ Midsummer looks great in MK19 summer but bleak in winter 6FD Better atmosphere for all ages of people ‐ more landscaping MK14 and less busy (like the 'City Square' the other side) 5HX More public toilets Could make it prettier ‐ better landscaping MK6 2SS What are they going to do about the tree? It's almost dead MK6 3JF 127
Topic Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved? ‐ put a new tree in there (e.g. Maple) MK13 8AT Design 3,4 Design 3,45 It's fine as it is More floral displays would make it more attractive and 3,46 MK4 3FN
more seating available. Is there room for a seated park where lunch time eaters etc 3,51 MK6 4UB
can enjoy like a small London park? 3,56 Pedestrianise the in front of the point MK46 3,58 More art and sculptures; more natural features. I should like to see it better used for leisure ‐ informal as well as formal (=paying). It should still be readily accessible by public transport and bear in mind needs of disabled and people with young children. There should be ample seating MK8 3,61 (free, not just cafe) indoor and outdoor and an area of 8DN garden for relaxation from shopping. Toilets should be close by and available early and late. The area should not serve to 'barricade' one side of the city centre from another, especially after closing time. CMK needs a central garden. Some 20 years ago, what is shown as a 'temporary car park' used to be such a space ‐ used for festivals and as general summer sitting area. It MK8 3,62 would be appropriate for this former use to be restored to 8DN CMK ‐ exact form, whether formal garden or informal space to be decided through residential consultation. Boulevard to east of Midsummer Place should remain with segregated carriageways retaining central trees but should MK8 3,62 be narrowed down sufficient to accommodate public 8DN transport up to sacle of an X5 coach ‐ but allowing for more pedestrian space on either side. Gateway bridge to the Campbell park much wider than 3,63 MK12 existing so pedestrians & cyclists can use it easier Design Design Design Design Design Design Design Design Design Design Landmark Bldg at end e.g. "Midsummer Axis" Post codes I believe that Midsummer Boulevard East has to be developed as
a whole, with an overarching vision. There is too much piecemeal
3,64 development. The entry point to Midsummer Boulevard, from
Campbell Park, needs special consideration, as part of an organic
approach.
The issue of the future of the food court needs to be resolved, as
3,64 a prelude to further planning.
128
Topic Design Design Design & Parking Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved? Vibrancy and space for socializing ‐ I don’t understand why these two very different things have been lumped together. We could improve vibrancy by having the shops open their doors onto MBE again, as they used to. Failing that, we could at least ensure that the shop windows looked remotely enticing. I will attach to my email some pictures that will demonstrate what I mean. We could improve 3,65 space for socializing by providing more pleasant indoor areas. It has been suggested that one of the original ideas for what is now the Midsummer Place wind tunnel was to have a space like Covent Garden where there could be performers and plenty of seating. The space currently used for the same old food chains could be used instead for more interesting food providers and possibly a few small specialist shops. The existing beautiful trees in Midsummer Boulevard East should be retained and incorporated in the new 3,66 development plans. Milton Keynes must be kept as a city of trees. 3,49 Put in zebra crossings and more free parking Food centre 3,21 Food centre 3,33 Food centre 3,54 Food Centre 3,66 Food Centre 3,35 Leisure experience Leisure experience Maintenanc
e Maintenanc
e 3,3 Knock down food centre & start again ‐ it was always a flawed design New uses for old Food Centre The Food Centre is not longer what it say on the can and is disjointed The Food Centre needs a major refurbish. The free multi‐
storey parking should be retained. The small independent shops kept and more encouraged, and a new supermarket. The vacant Sainsburys shop is an eyesore it should be put to a good use as the empty Waitrose shop has been. Knock down Food Hall, replace with market sq with unique and independent retailers More entertainment 3,47 Nice wine bars. Improve main area from the lights right up to Midsummer Place, particularly the road and bus area. The roads and car parks in Midsummer Boulevard East are 3,66 all in need of repair and resurfacing. 3,55 Market 3,14 Preserve and enhance market Market 3,16 Bigger market and covered Post codes MK14 7RB MK13 9EQ MK14 5DU MK6 2SS MK15 MK14 5HX NN10 129
Topic Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved? Post codes 8TS Market Market As a market trader of Milton Keynes for 25 years, it would 3,18 be good to see some sort of Investment on the Market, e.g. public toilets, paving stones around the market replacing 3,2 Antique, craft markets on a more regular basis. Good market area for permanent stalls, fish market like we 3,21 used to have on Thursdays The Market needs a roof ‐ dreadful working conditions in 3,29 the wind and wet ‐ probably contrary to H&S Act! 3,33 Improve appearance of market area 3,43 Better lighting in market & no cracked pavements Market 3,48 To have a outdoor and indoor market Market Market Market 3,5 Continued market 3,54 Bigger and better market 3,56 Massively improve the market Modernise Market ‐ look at great markets in Scandinavia & 3,8 Germany ‐ more tourist attraction ‐ families bring kids to MK6 2HX
the Market Market re‐located in a purpose built indoor facility. 3,63 Secklow Bridge can close to enable development of that MK12 area. 3,64 The open-air market should be an organic part of the overall plan.
Since I am representing the market traders at the workshop I won’t say much about this but, as a shopper, I will say that the market represents almost all that is left of the ‘high street’ aspect of CMK. It is the only place to buy pet food, hardware, tools, car accessories, and a multitude of specialist items. Even when CMK provides alternatives, they are expensive and not as convenient. For me, walking from MK14 3,65 Downs Barn, the alternative for fresh fruit and vegetables is 7RB M&S at the furthest end of the shopping building. I remember when the shopping building opened and we had small shops selling hardware, decorating materials, home furnishings, electronics, books etc. The market is now the only place for such small or specialist retailers. By all means enhance it. The bigger and better provisioned it is the more I shall like it. The Market is a big asset to MK residents it should be kept 3,66 in its current location. It should be refurbished and possibly enlarged. Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Market MK4 4HQ MK14 5DU MK6 2SS MK15 MK13 9EQ MK13 MK15 MK46 130
Topic Misc Misc Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved? The development of the art gallery needs special consideration. It
needs to expand, and if the development of an independent
cinema forms part of its plans, all to the good (it is surprising that
3,64 the nearest independent cinemas are in Northampton and
Oxford). But if the site is too small, or development compromises
the overall picture, then other avenues need to be looked at.
MSP Parking 3,26 How much did it cost to do this mall? It's cold in winter/autumn months as I work in Midsummer 3,36 Place, doors or more shelter would be useful 3,5 Get heating 3,44 2 hours free parking works in Bedford! Parking 3,48 Underground parking (free) Parking 3,54 More free parking There are 22 relevant reviews of CMK on TripAdvisor on the internet http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review‐
g187055‐d3138412‐Reviews‐The_Centre_MK‐
Milton_Keynes_Buckinghamshire_England.html 9 mention parking charges as a negative and 8 mention the easy availability of parking as a positive (often the same people). It is not just the charges that come under attack but the complexity of sorting out the various categories of charges. What is clear to me as an almost daily visitor is how many of 3,65 the higher cost spaces are available most of the time. I know this is subject to a separate review so will not elaborate. What does need to be said, however, is how much trade is lost to the shops by the system of parking charges. I frequently meet friends for coffee or lunch who would have happily stayed much longer if they hadn’t already paid for a defined amount of parking or been lucky enough to find time‐limited free parking. I would hazard a guess that this system is costing the shops more than any other problem that we might identify at the workshop. Another multi‐storey car park provided, possibly behind John Lewis with access from Marlborough St. Parking 3,66 should be free for MK residents and low cost for visitors to encourage more shoppers. MSP Parking Parking Pedestrian/
cycling accessibility Pedestrian/
cycling accessibility Pedestrians Post codes MK46 5PW MK13 9EQ MK15 MK14 7RB 3,4 More pedestrian accessibility North‐South MK13 8AT 3,4 More accessibility for cyclists North‐South MK13 8AT 3,14 More shelter from wind and rain MK14 5HX 131
Topic Process Public square Public square Public square Public square Public square Public square Public square Public square Public square Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved? Sktech plans needed as I don't believe people understand 3,27 the overall picture Maybe some more communal areas wth more cover for 3,9 weather 3,12 Like the idea of square Need civic space for free events and stuff that could be put 3,23 on by local authority and voluntary organisations ‐ need public land, as need free points for amplication etc I like the idea of a town square with the obvious location 3,59 where market currently is. Any chance the market could be satisfactorily relocated to a position in what Post codes SG17 5JH
MK3 6JA 3,4 Use the car park next to the point as a city square 3,7 Town centre central public place 3,8 A public square Create public square on top of Blvd between Theatre District and John Lewis. In creating a public square, Midsummer Blvd can be closed to traffic to create a pedestrian and cycling environment (between Secklow and 3,63 Marlborough) . In the public square should be very tall piece of public art to create a landmark structure. Removal of surface parking / closure of the Blvd creates opportunity for the ped/cycle environment described and allow space for leisure/retail development. I have lived in and adjacent to CMK since 1980 and I have never heard anyone say we needed a town or civic square. Most recently some people of whom most of us know nothing decided that we needed a public memorial site so we now have the MKRose. The MKNews picture of our Mayor as ‘one of several people’ at the recent Holocaust Memorial says it all. If we are looking for outside space we 3,65 have it in various places including opposite the Council offices, outside the theatre and in Campbell Park. The suggestion that we should have another space further blocking off MBE is a surprise to me. If you have spent any time in the area between MacDonalds and The Point you would know that this is where we already have a disproportionate number of apparent ‘undesirables’, so why would we want to expand it? MK6 2HX
MK12 MK14 7RB 132
Topic Public square Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved? A city square would be good as long as it has trees, shrubs, flowers and a water feature with a seating area. Street 3,66 entertainers and vendors encouraged Not like Queens Court which was lovely but is sadly now soulless, grey and boring. A bus interchange with facilities that benefit the city. Not 3,10 the terrible bus shelters at Food Centre end. Midsummer Place retains a corridor for eventual public transport. Now that we have viable electric buses, this should be opened up to take this form of transport. Larger 3,62 diesel buses could continue to use lower 9th St but all the local buses should be electric ones and travel through canopy area ‐ as part of a redesign for that area. 3,14 Better facilities for people to use buses Post codes MK3 7EL MK8 8DN MK14 5HX 3,15 Bus station to make it easier to find how to get home 3,17 Closed bus station for shelter. a central point 3,19 A nice long bus station on lower 10th St where it will be warm and dry 3,23 Need to make sure bus areas work for disabled people 3,23 Drop‐off point for car users to pick‐up kids etc 3,24 Create an indoor bus station with shops too MK9 3ES You need a tramway. The Boulevards were designed to accommodate a double track tramway. Nine new metro 3,38 lines opened in China last December ‐ we are being left behind. Possible interchange between bus & tram is in the right place already. MK3 6BL 3,39 Heated bus station MK3 6BL 3,41 Anything that improves flow and frequency of bus. Local transport needs improving. 3,52 Bus station to be relocated to centre 3,56 Move bus interchange 1 block east 3,8 Dedicated transport service from train station to Coachway (e.g. tram) MK46 MK6 2HX
133
Topic Public transport Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved? I subscribe to the original transport plan – with a tram or
equivalent running in a straight line from the station to Campbell
Park, and buses running along the parallel boulevards. This could
3,64 be a major attraction, and helps resolve the perennial problem of
communication between the station and the shopping district.
There is no need for buses to weave in and out.
Public transport 3,65 Public transport 3,66 Public transport 3,66 Shopping experience 3,1 Shopping experience 3,11 Shopping experience Shopping experience Post codes Although I have a car I seldom use it in CMK. I have far more experience as a pedestrian and a bus user. Routing all buses along MBE and then onto the Avebury Boulevard dog’s leg before returning to the Boulevard adds considerably to the time taken to get through the centre of Milton Keynes and has no advantages if you are not intending to alight there. However it is essential that there is quick, frequent and reliable public transport for those who want to alight in CMK and this should go directly between the railway station and the Campbell Park end of MBE. Most towns have a bus station either in or adjacent to their main shopping area. MK14 CMK needs either a bus station or, at least, a ‘hub’ where 7RB interchange is made as easy as possible. There should also be toilets, protected waiting areas, real‐time information, and a place to buy drinks, snacks, magazines etc. Ideally there should also be an office where information about transport and about CMK can be picked up. The current situation where, in the absence of any real‐time information, you have to run between stops to get the first bus that will take you to the railway station is primitive. In this respect at least the railway station ‘hub’ is a great improvement on the old system. A covered seating and waiting area is needed in the Marlborough Gate Coach Park for coach passengers. The "bus stopping" area by the Point needs a drastic overhaul, it is currently very run‐down, grim and dirty. Other large cities/towns have covered waiting areas, real time bus display boards and facilities to be proud of. More independent shops but only chain stores can afford the rent ‐ may need to subsidise the rent and service MK9 6FD charge. Better to allow local businesses earn a living. Need small shopping centre for small independent businesses, not chain stores. For young people ‐ Mk1 6 commission, not rents. 3,2 Blue Banana store 3,2 More affordable space for small, local, independent businesses. MK4 1JP 134
Topic Shopping experience Shopping experience Shopping experience Shopping experience Shopping experience Shopping experience Shopping experience Signage Signage Signage The Point The Point The Point The Point Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved? 3,3 More shops, less restaurants and phone shops. 3,37 More small shops ‐ specialist, deli's, farmer's market Post codes MK13 8AT MK16 0HA More boutique & individual stores subsidised by larger stores Set up units for charities to use on rotational basis. Or for vendors inside the centre to use for special sales on MK4 3FN
3,46 weekly/monthly basis. Or coffee/tea units with outside seating. Places for local small business, not just big national retailers 3,54 MK15 and franchises 3,44 3,57 It would be great to have an affordable art and craft area Another department store and a Primark would bring in 3,66 more shoppers. BUT NOT SITED AT THE EXPENSE OF SECKLOW GATE BRIDGE. 3,28 Sign‐posting for public toilets in shopping centres WA4 6DF
More clear signage coming from out of town, lots of car PO13 3,32 parkds, no clear directions to the actual shopping area; 9QP more likely to find ski dome than mk:centre shops entrance. 3,33 Clearer traffic paths ‐ lots of dead ends at the moment MK6 2SS MK14 3,21 Blow up the point ‐ I'll press the button 5DU The Point is looking very tired. It's an iconic building ‐ can MK14 3,53 we make it look better. 6JX Improve the pont, looks aged because of the lack of 3,55 investment The Point should be retained and restored and re‐opened MK8 3,62 for a new use. 8DN The Point I believe that at least the profile of The Point should be retained in
some form or other. Architecturally it may not be a great design,
3,64 but it is an iconic memory of the original development of MK and
has real interest and heritage status as the first multiplex in the
UK
The Point The Point structure should kept and maintained in good 3,66 condition, and a viable use found for it. This is important as it is one of the few icons of MK. Theatre District Young people Young people While the theatre is a striking building, the rest of the so-called
3,64 theatre district is not! A huddle of buildings, and a badly designed
car park.
Seating area for young people to hang out throughout the Boulevard Areas for children to play and expand their minds (like 3,22 Willen Lake) 3,12 MK6 2 MK10 9NZ 135
Topic Young people Young people Young people Young people Young people Young people / University Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved? 3,25 Family friendly A skatepark, ramps maybe? Mini‐ramps? More variety is 3,3 great! Somewhere where people can sit and watch [the skateboarders] We would like a skatepark, having a variety is more fun to 3,31 skate and also it can be fun for people to watch Skateboard area (better than Buszy) so people can watch 3,6 and interact. Better for young people to enjoy beng there; Place for 3,6 young people to hang out (e.g. youth club) 3,35 Central university / education to breathe into it Post codes 136
Topic No. Q4 Do you have any other questions or comments? Access 4,2 Access 4,13 Design 4,2 Design 4,7 Design 4,7 Design 4,13 Design 4,18 Design 4,21 Design 4,23 Design 4,19 Keep Bridge Open at all Costs Roads need to be better ‐ that's what we pay road tax for, and pedestrian walk ways. Make open space with seating by theatre More turf down main strip of Midsummer Blvd. Too concrete. Generally add more plants/flowers More nature Life will make CMK look more appealing to the eye. Visitor to area. Very attractive parking prices, easy to find a space, looks like buses are convenient too. Lots of shops, but with so many bits 'added on' need to know where to start. Oh, and maybe more maps of centre itself. Midsummer Blvd could be converted to Park area. Trees and seating, much like a london park. Bring it more upmarket Being a disabled pensioner, I do not walk far and somewhere I could have a drink and watch something other than traffic would be good. You can't get rid of the Food Court either because it is so loved by all Enlarge Market Market too jammed in ‐ some quality of merchandise is questionable Mini market stalls in Midsummer Place Leave market as it is, but add indoor market Market is dated and needs to be moved Night market ‐ connect with theatre, night out etc Keep up the good work guys! Food Centre Market 4,4 4,2 Market 4,3 Market Market Market Market Misc 4,5 4,6 4,7 4,20 4,8 Misc 4,10 None Misc Parking Parking Parking 4,12 N/A Pressure groups seem to over‐rule council. Why do we 4,22 allow so few to make our decisions on what happens in CMK? Who do they think they are…. It would be nice to improve this area but if public expenditure is involved, in this era of austerity, I think there 4,16 are far more important priorities ‐ especially essential services. 4,5 Want free parking ‐ Northampton is free parking all day 4,7 Nowhere near enough parking! 4,7 Please add more parking!! Pedestrians 4,1 Misc Misc Remain pedestrian access through Midsummer Place Post code MK3 5FS MK3 5FS PO13 9QP MK4 3FN
MK3 5FS MK4 2EV NN10 8ES MK3 6JA MK46 MK6 2SS MK3 5FS MK3 5FS MK15 0AY 137
Post code Topic No. Q4 Do you have any other questions or comments? Pedestrians 4,9 Public square 4,19 Public square 4,20 Public square 4,25 Need pedestrian x‐ing from centre towards library Get sponsorship from stores to put displays on, ie. Choirs, dancers, bands, buskers, gymnasts. Don't keep putting MK4 3FN
them inside Middleton Hall. Organised Street entertainment / buskers ‐ covent garden MK4 2EV style will give area more character and appeal. I hope that no single commercial interest or consortium of such, is allowed to dictate the use of the area to its own perceived advantage and to the detriment of the quality of life of residents and visitors. It would be good to see some truly public space, where public gatherings, stalls of a MK8 campaigning nature (temporary), leafletting, petitioning 8DN and engaging with the public are not excluded or subject to far greater restrictions than is the case in most city 'high streets'. This has been a valuable freedom in British life and should not be 'planned' out of our city. Suspended monorail connecting train station up to MK15 Marlborough Gate 0AY Provide covered area by the Coach Park behind John Lewis with seating for waiting passengers Will the transport pods that run from the train station feature in the area in the future? Public transport Public transport Public transport Public transport Shopping experience Shopping experience Shopping experience Shopping experience Shopping experience Shopping experience Shopping experience Shopping experience The Point The Point The Point 4.1 4,11 4,17 4,23 Better public transport to train station 4,5 Need Wimpey Bar 4,5 24‐hr shopping centre 4,5 Don't mind if fill in Midsummer Place with shops and market stalls 4,6 Play radio 2 or classic FM music 4,6 No casinos or betting shops 4,7 Great range of shops MK3 5FS You should not have chased Waitrose away. We hardly 4,15 come into CMK anymore ‐ except for this exhibition, which MK3 6BL we were told to attend! Worried about too many big shopping centres (city centre & 4,24 stadium) and too few people ‐ they all suffer 4,2 Keep 'Point' but repaint! 4,4 Don't get rid of the Point, it is an icon of Milton Keynes 4,5 Knock the Point down or repaint it ‐ put up flats or social 138
Topic The Point The Point Young people Young people No. Q4 Do you have any other questions or comments? Post code club 4,14 Give us an iconic building to replace the Point 4,19 Do not take down the point as it is a landmark of the centre. MK4 3FN
4,6 Need play group area for kids 4,6 No skateboarding ‐ skate board park in Campbell Park, not city centre 139
14
40

Dr Eric Albone MBE - Christians in Science

Horizon 2020 - Horizonte 2020

E-670 - John Marshall Law School

THE HOPE HOUSE CHALLENGE

Cellular Phone Service 2015 Bid

Frequently Ask Questions - Baltimore City Public Schools

April 22 - Allegheny County

NRF: Grant Writing Workshop by Peter Haaland

July 2014 - St Helena

MST sterilizer overview