Sustainable Practices in the Redevelopment of Canary Wharf - Case Study Example

Topic: Sustainable Practices in the Redevelopment of Canary Wharf This report will detail the inspiration gained from the major development– the regeneration of the Canary Wharf based on its sustainability and other features in addressing many obstacles for its achievement. It shall utilise secondary research to fulfil is aim in identifying sustainable practices in the given topic. As an aspiring architect, regeneration projects are one of the most problematic built environments as they usually address decay and urban blight. This paper will highlight the success of the Canary Wharf regeneration or redevelopment based on reviews and analysis through use of sustainable design. As an aspiring architect, carrying out further research on the sustainability of Canary Wharf as a major development project will guide me as well as fellow learners about the importance of sustainability and innovating in design to achieve it. Summary Canary Wharf, a marshland located in the Isle of Dogs in Borough of Tower Hamlets in East London used to be one of the busiest ports in the world since it opened as West India Docks 1802. Its peak was seen from the 1930s when the Port of London carried about 35 million tons of cargo carried by some 55 thousand ships until its peak in 1961 when it handled about 60 million tons of cargo. The decline of the port industry in the 1950s led to its closing in 1970s. It has undertaken several seemingly insurmountable steps and processes since then to replace its glory days. Today, it is a major business district of about 1.3 million square metres of offices and retail space (Canary Wharf Group, 2012). Introduction Redevelopment projects are usually major challenges for built environment industries including the designers and architects in a given team. The many factors that redevelopments consider are double against new developments: temporary relocation and displacement of residents and workers in the given area, the disruption of economic, social, and other activities, addressing decay, re-design in consideration of history and the tradition of the people in the given area, funding and other requirements, regulation and governance, and external factors that may be adversely affected by the project. The major obstacles to the redevelopment of the Canary Wharf have been many and its success owed much to the various architectural feats implemented. The design and architectural approaches that need to address the challenges motivated me to research using secondary data (methodology) and provide a report on the Canary Wharf redevelopment. Discussion Canary Wharf Canary Wharf was became a high concern after the closure of the docks due to its economic impact. Secretary of State for the Environment Peter Walker assigned consultants Travers Morgan to undertake as study of the Thames-side area between London Docks and Barking Creek and the consultants proposed in January 1973 a wide range of options which did not prosper. By 1976, the Docklands Joint Committee or DJC created the London Docklands Strategic Plan or LDSP. Redevelopment, however, can be traced from the creation of the London Docklands Development Corporation by the local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. By 1982, the Isle of the Dogs became an Enterprise Zone that offered tax breaks for developers and investors within a ten-year life cycle. In 1988 when then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher launched the Canary Wharf construction project, it was considered one of the world’s largest developments. As a major project, Canary Wharf met a lot of challenges including perception that “Large projects are liable to focus benefits on relatively few individuals, and impose costs over a wide group whose members each have relatively little to lose,” Hall (1981, 15). Redevelopment was led by Canadian developer Paul Reichmann (LDDC, 2009) through the Canadian the Olympia & York- an international property development firm. Tax breaks provided by government to regenerate the rundown areas was provided them and they bought the land from Credit Suisse Group and Morgan Stanley - the first two tenants that move in by 1991. By 1992, the London commercial property market started suffering due to bankruptcy of the developer. The Canary Wharf Group took over the company in 1995 and manages 17 of the 35 office buildings and all common areas on the 97-acre property with 15.9 million sq. ft. of office space. Canary Wharf’ adopted the slogan “Looks like Venice, works like New York” but perceived as a “silly slogan” that failed to provide a consistent treatment for the waterside “even within the limitations of the laisse-faire EZ philosophy,” (Home, 1990, 123). During that time, there were many criticisms on its threatening, unwelcoming, visual anarchy (18). Today, Canary Wharf is a major financial capital and an important city centre of London occupied by many of the world’s best companies, diverse industries and architectural feats that caters to millions of employees. In 2004, Songbird Estates controlled and took over with four major investors Qatar Holding, China Investment, New York’s Simon Glick, and Morgan Stanley Real Estate Funds with a total of 72% of stock (Woodifield and Bill, 2011). It has some 15 million square feet of office, retail and leisure space across its iconic business commercial and shopping districts in inner London - home to property development, investment and management group of companies and considered one of the best places in the world to locate a business (Canary Wharf, 2012). Sustainability Sustainable design and architecture came up after concerns about the continuity of natural and man-made environment to maintain and support growth and consumption rose alarmingly worldwide. Changes in the climate, quality of air, temperatures, and other natural occurrences made scientific observers as well as policy-makers to address the close links between sustainability, economy, and society (Sustainable Development Commission, 2009). Sustainability provides solutions to the environmental degradation and lack of human quality of life as well as equality so that a long-term, healthy and stable environment is achieved (Sassi, 2006). Governments from the international to community levels connect with one another to promote sustainability for social, environmental, and humanitarian purposes. Design, in this process, has never had a more important role. Integration of what works into the planning of a built environment has become as mandatory as many other environmental regulations (Ross, 2010) although this trend has been influenced mainly by discriminating consumers who have become aware of their need to play their role in the process. Architects or designers have to adapt to these requirements in order to meet demands but most importantly, their role as initiators of what are to become. Their goals: maximise use of natural and existing environments and facilities and incorporate this system in the improved or environment being developed. Many design and architectural aims when it comes to sustainability includes the promotion and integration of best practices as well as innovation from the design process up to the easy and practical maintenance of the built environment; promotion of green consumption, transport or mobility, and other environment-friendly activities through the design process; promote and activate practical waste management with recycling, reusing, and minimal landfill materials; and engaging users, owners, developers, and the community in active pursuance of sustainable lifestyles and activities (Blowers, 1992). Sassi (2006) suggested that sustainable design is not only a passing trend but adopted to provide favourable long-term solutions instead of short-term individual gains. It provides an understanding of a complex interconnection of networks with quality of life as a major end-goal. The focus is the end-user, the environment, and the functionality of the product adhering to traditional design concepts (Newell and Simon, 1972). Sustainable design considerations start from planning, to use of materials, sourcing of labour, procurement, and maintenance. Ethically sourced materials with the least environment impact are priorities as construction companies were mandated to treat workers fairly and safely (McKenzie, 1997). These goals are achieved using recycled products of products in their most natural state, sourced and transported with the least carbon emission, and with the least negative impact or positive impact on the environment, its users, and the community. End-users benefit as all processes and peoples involved from source to consumer are treated ethically and packaged properly with least environment impact. The product is expected to contribute positively to the social and physical environment through provision of solutions that enhance the environment and the psycho-social well-being of users (Sassi, 2006). The architect designer in this manner is expected to deliver in every major built environment project like the Canary Wharf positive impact that goes beyond the building and towards land use and choice of site; positive impact on community and the way of life of individuals and users, and as much as possible, from the local to international level; positive health and safety features for humans, flora, fauna, and the inanimate natural environments; positive use of materials, and positive contribution towards lessened carbon dioxide and other emissions (Sassi, 2006). Employing Sustainability in Canary Wharf Canary Wharf has an Environment Management System that handles all the activities for continuing improvement on performance so that it was named UK’s Best Green Companies by The Sunday Times in 2009 and 2010 (CWG, 2012). It has about 20 acres of open landscaped space on ground level and green roofs, docks with various species of plants, birds, fish and other animals. It also has its own Biodiversity Action Plan that conforms and integrates with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Action Biodiversity Plan. Whilst the aim is to attract tenants and visitors, it encompasses all factors that may affect the environment and its inhabitants including: Energy Management where they are signed up to their own Green Tariff, supplied with renewable energy sources such as wind farms and hydroelectricity, reduction of emissions, heat recovery systems, and reduced use of artificial lighting. Waste Management works to maximise recycling, reduce waste, and divert as much waste from disposal to landfill. Appendix A provides an overview of waste generation in Canary Wharf. Transport system measures the movement and mobility of peoples within, to and from the area with results of surveys indicating that there was a decline of use of private cars from 6.2% in 2007 to 5.1% by 2009; increased popularity of cycling as 4% of workers cycle to work in 2009, up from 2.9 in 2007 supported in part by the government-backed Cycle to Work allowing workers to buy at discount price cycles as they pay over a period of time; and increased use of public transport. To further encourage cycling, 2200 cycle parks were installed of which 800 were private tenant provided, with 400 payable secure spaces. Biodiversity program employs cultivation of native and foreign mature trees and colourful plants not only in open spaces but also on new buildings and the docks to attract insects, birds. Compost green waste and safe pesticides were also used complemented by the high green roof percentage in the area. Communicating the various green efforts is also key to the sustainable program of CWG in order to encourage and motivate workers, staff, tenants, and visitors to cooperate and participate. One of the major actions of the Canary Wharf Group towards sustainability was in helping local companies and residents to benefit from the construction work, promote use of local construction companies for sub-contracts, and encouraged residents to register for construction labour against prevailing trend at that time that allowed contractors to bring their own tried and tested team. This led to the pouring of more than £48 million worth of business to local companies and labourers as £18 million went to Tower Hamlet companies and some 500 residents were employed on site. Aside from the impact of local labour and contractors, the CWG also initiated to deal with local small and medium enterprises or SMEs for them to bid and win contracts for Canary Wharf projects. It found out that it was not the quality or price of work that has prevented locals from trying but the size of jobs, paperwork, and process. The local SMEs in return, developed their own health and safety policies, adhered to environment policies, and invested in information technology and training to become competitive (CWG, 2012). CWG’s Local Business Liaison Office or LBLO was able to secure some £615 million of business from Canary Wharf Group and tenants and became an important business network in east London. Various advantages and opportunities led to this “good neighbour” initiative of CWG but more importantly, CWG also acknowledged that: …we have also found it very useful to have a stable of high quality, enthusiastic and loyal local suppliers able to move very quickly when we need them. This in turn has become a positive selling point to potential Canary Wharf tenants when they ask about the capability of the local economy to supply them with the services and products a large international business might need. Finally by creating thousands of indirect jobs – the last estimate in 1999 being over 150,000 indirect jobs dependent on the Canary Wharf estate – the LBLO and ELBP are helping to support a vibrant and diverse local economy. That means more people in work, and more people shopping at Canary Wharf, which in turn drives more investment (CWG, 2012, P 27). By employing not only one, two or three systems but a multi-approach solution towards sustainability, the Canary Wharf have shown that challenges can be addressed in a way that will make not only the investors of the projects the winning side of the undertaking but a partner with the locals, workers, visitors, and the community in winning over sustainable issues. Conclusion, Reflection & Recommendation Based on the facts and data gathered from Canary Wharf Group as well as the recognition given to their sustainable efforts, the Canary Wharf as a major development project is a success. The CWG admits for the need to continue as well as expand efforts to meet a wholesome environment not only physically but also socially and psychologically. They have not rested on their laurels either. I therefore find that sustainable systems in place will not ensure that a major project already met their responsibility on the environment and the community. In addition, sustainable design should continue to research, innovate, and deliver better and improved means and ways to mitigate pollution and environment destruction if not help improve the natural environment itself. Canary Wharf’s employment of sustainability is considered one of the best practices already in London and in the United Kingdom. However, current practices should continue seeking ways to further promote lower carbon emissions, lowered energy consumption, least impact on the environment, but maximised social, physical and psychological health not only of humans but on all inhabitants in a given area. The programs of Canary Wharf are best laudable for their adoption of the good neighbour approach where sharing of their practices has been noted even outside Canary Wharf itself. And for an aspiring architect like me, I have realised through this research that sustainability only begins with design and remains a continuing process until the lifetime of every product. By employing sustainability in the architectural process, all factors that are involved in the location, use, and community of a certain designed environment should be considered so that even the least of them such as insects, are given a chance to play their role effectively. (words-2525) Reference: Blowers, A. 1992. Planning a Sustainable Future: Problems, Principles, and Prospects. Town Country Planning, 61, 132. Canary Wharf Group. 2012. Canary Wharf. Accessed from http://www.canarywharf.com/aboutus/Who-We-Are/Our-History/ Hall, P. 1981. Great Planning Disasters. London, Penguin. Home, R. 1990. Planning around London’s megaproject: Canary Wharf and the Isel of the Dogs. Cities, May. LDDC. 2009. The Development of Transport in London Docklands – Part 1: The Chronological Story. LDDC history. Accessed from http://www.lddchistory.org.uk/transport/tranmon2.html#Era. McKenzie, D. 1997. Green design: design for the environment. Laurence King. Newell, A. and Simon, H. 1972. Human problem solving. Prentice Hall. Ross, A. 2010. It’s Time to Get Serious – Why Legislation is Needed to Make Sustainable Development a Reality in the UK. Sustianbility 2071-1050. Sassi, P. 2006. Strategies for Sustainable Architecture. Taylor and Francis. Sustainable Development Commission. 2009. Where We Are Now. A Review of Progress on Sustainable Development. London, July. Woodifield P. and Bill, T. 2011. Canary Wharf’s Split Success. BusinessWeek, March 31. Accessed from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223050824599.htm Appendix: A: Source: CWG, 2012 Read More