The Bartlett School of Planning Street appeal : the value of street improvements

The planning for and design of streets around the world have been undergoing a radical change via a move from a network efficiency model to a movement and place-based one. This is a fundamental change, and it is important to understand both the benefits and drawbacks that result. This research represents an attempt to capture and understand these impacts and to address the question, what is the ‘value’, in the widest sense of the word, of place-based improvements in street design. The key features of the approach adopted here were, the use of pairwise comparisons of five improved and five unimproved streets across London, a holistic analytical framework to represent the complexity of urban streets, and the use of diverse qualitative and quantitative data to understand the diverse forms of value that might accrue from interventions. As well as important methodological innovations and insights, the research revealed that in relation to street improvements in the sorts of mixed local high street locations investigated, investments in the quality of the street environment return substantial value to the everyday users of streets, and to the occupiers of space (to business) and investors in surrounding property in multiple ways. Street appeal: the value of street improvements 3 1.0 Investing in street appeal Those cities that have failed to integrate the multi-functionality of streets tend to have lesser infrastructure development, lower productivity, a poorer quality of life . social exclusion and generate inequalities in various spheres of life (UN-Habitat 2013) The quality of the street environment effects us all. Whether we are walking to school, waiting at a bus stop, cycling to work, shopping, or even driving through a city, how streets handle and balance the various, complex and often conflicting needs of users has a profound impact on our daily lives and wellbeing. At the same time streets in traditional cities are often highly constrained physically, and this means that we need to make hard choices about which functions to prioritise and where. These are choices that cities around the world are having to make, and increasingly such choices are coming down on the side of seeing streets as more than just movement corridors that facilitate the passing of traffic. The Complete Streets movement in the US provides a case-in-point, where, since 2003 advocates have been advancing (increasingly successfully) the idea that we need to plan for and design our streets differently with the needs of all users (not just car users) in mind. Also, and importantly, that this needs to have political buy-in (McCann & Rynne 2010: 4). In the parlance of urban design, streets also have a vital ‘place’ function reflecting their role as environments within which we meet and socialise, where businesses are located, where we walk and cycle, and where the public life of the city carries on. London, for example, has for at least ten years been investing in the quality of its street environment as part of a long-term strategy for securing a better balance between the ‘movement’ and ‘place’ based functions of streets. Thus Transport for London’s (TfL) key Streetscape Guidance argues “Streets are places for people. Successful streetscapes are inclusive and provide for the competing requirements of their users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, bus operators, bus passengers, private vehicle owners, and freight vehicle operators” (TfL 2016: 1). In other words a balance needs to be struck between their role connecting up pedestrian, cycle and vehicular movement, and a role as a venue for the social, economic and cultural life of the city (Figure 1). Figure 1: Investing in London’s streets, reclaimed road space, Eltham, London (Matthew Carmona) Street appeal: the value of street improvements 4 Yet, as with all changes to streets, space is limited and better provision for one street function may have knock on impacts on others. More space for cyclists, for instance, may mean less space for cars or pedestrians, or simply that their ability to move is in someway constrained by the new infrastructure, as controversies over the creation of Cycle Superhighways across London have shown in recent years (Stops 2015). The re-design of the urban realm in streets is also likely to bring with it concerns from businesses or residents along the route who may be worried that parking, servicing and other amenities will be compromised, or that gentrification pressures may be stoked (Kahne 2015). The danger is that such concerns drown out consideration of less obviously tangible and hard to measure benefits such as more space to socialise and enjoy the environment, greater encouragement to walking with associated health benefits, or knock on impacts on private investment in an area. Infrastructure schemes have traditionally been justified on the basis of cost benefit analysis (CBA), which attempts to quantify the benefits of a new intervention against the dis-benefits and infrastructure costs. But CBA can be very partial (van Wee 2012), reflecting only the impacts that can be easily quantified and these are unlikely to reflect the whole story. In London, TfL’s recent innovations in street design and management move beyond such a narrow cost-based view of the street environment. They encompass a shift from a network efficiency model to a movement and place-based one in which streets are viewed as places of complex social and economic exchange as well as channels for movement (Figure 2). This is a fundamental change reflected in the Street Types Matrix against which every street in London has been mapped for their movement and place functions as a means to help decision makers understand the amount of change needed when planning for their future (Roads Task Force 2015: 8). Yet whilst such moves reflect a growing awareness of the importance of thinking more broadly about the functions of streets, arguably they are not yet underpinned by a comprehensive understanding of the potential benefits (and dis-benefits) that might flow from this. Figure 2: Streets as places of complex exchange and movement, Regent Street, London (Matthew Carmona) The case for making new investments in the street environment should better capture the full range of positive benefits that might be added by the intervention, and any negative externalities. Knowing this type of information will help deliver more informed investment decisions relating to the urban realm in cities around the world and will ensure that, when delivered, investments in the local street environment will help to maximise the place-based benefits. The research that 1 For example TfL’s Toolkit for Valuing the Urban Realm Street appeal: the value of street improvements 5 underpins this paper represents an attempt to capture and understand these impacts for London and to address the question, what is the ‘value’, in the widest sense of the word, of place-based improvements in street design. The paper begins by discussing some of the methodological and conceptual challenges in addressing this subject, before presenting a ‘holistic’ framework for analysis in order to give a more rounded and nuanced picture of value than previously attempted in much ‘design value’ research. Next ten streets from across London, five cases of streets that have been improved and five unimproved comparators, are introduced. The evidence gathered through various related but distinct sources of data on these ten streets follows, and from this findings are extracted relating to the physical fabric, real estate, movement and exchange dimensions of street value. Finally overarching conclusions are presented that reveal a convincing case for continuing to invest in the quality of streets as places, not just as movement corridors. The research found that improvements to the quality of the publically owned and managed areas of London’s mixed streets, such as high streets and town centres, return substantial benefits to the everyday users of streets, and to the occupiers of space and investors in surrounding property in multiple ways. In the study these included: o A one third uplift in the physical quality of the street as a whole from interventions in the publically owned street space. o An uplift in office rental values equivalent to an ‘additional’ 4% per annum. This helps to support investment in business space in the face of pressures to convert to more profitable residential uses. o A larger uplift in retail rental values equivalent to an ‘additional’ 7.5% per annum. This results from the more attractive retail environment that has been created and the encouragement this is giving to investment in these locations despite competition from on-line retail and ’out-of-town’ shopping centres. o A strongly related decline in retail vacancy leading to a sizable 17% per annum difference in vacancy rates between improved and unimproved street environments. o A growth in leisure uses, and a greater resilience in the improved streets of traditional (A1) and comparison retail; all bucking the common trend of decline in such uses that is often seen elsewhere. o An almost negligible impact on residential values, helping to counter concerns that street improvements, by themselves, will further inflate house prices and encourage gentrification. o Inconsequential impacts, from the street improvements alone, on traffic flows or the modal choices made by individuals when travelling (unless road capacity is deliberately removed as part of an improvement scheme), but a reduction in serious or fatal accidents on those streets with higher preexisting levels of collisions. Street appeal: the value of street improvements 6 o A large 96% boost in static (e.g. standing, waiting, and sitting) and 93% boost in active (e.g. walking) street behaviours in improved over unimproved areas, with strong potential health benefits in the resulting more active lifestyles