Station's confused forecourt a winner

[Mojo]

http://thisisbristol.co.uk/displayN...me=yes&more_nodeId1=144922&contentPK=17812255

The busy and seemingly chaotic forecourt at Temple Meads station has been named as one of the best examples of public space in England.Architecture, urban design and public space experts said deliberate confusion about which areas were for traffic and which were for pedestrians was a safety feature.

They said the fact people had to walk through traffic to reach the car park in the middle of the station approach, made drivers and pedestrians take greater care. There have been no major accidents in 13 years.

Now a group which advises the Government has said other towns and cities could learn much from the way the Temple Meads forecourt was remodelled back in the 1990s.

CABE - the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment - has included the forecourt in a report out today which highlights 10 examples countrywide of historic spaces being used well.

CABE said most station forecourts were "dismal disappointments" even though they often provided visitors with a first impression of a city or town. Many were filled with clutter and dominated by traffic where pedestrians were frequently regarded as an inconvenience.

But Louise Duggan, an adviser at CABE, said: "Temple Meads demonstrates what can be achieved through the use of simple measures of good quality and careful design to enhance its historic setting."

The report, published as part of CABE's Design Better Streets campaign, said the forecourt at Temple Meads replaced a formless expanse, dominated by parked cars, signs, road markings and cheap municipal lighting.

It said: "The space is very busy with cars, buses, taxis and pedestrians arriving and leaving the railway station. A decision was taken to create a much more attractive place and use the 'chaos' as a safety device in itself, creating deliberate confusion about which space is for vehicles and which for pedestrians.

"Pedestrians are encouraged to walk across the traffic to reach the car park in the centre of the space. This introduces uncertainty, slows traffic and makes the pedestrians take greater care."

Ms Duggan said: "Some disabled people, particularly visually impaired people, have concerns about the safety of designs like this where there is not a clear distinction between spaces for pedestrians and motorists. We can't claim that they have got it 100 per cent right in the scheme but their innovative approach is a brave move towards developing better practice."

Elaine Wilde, of First Great Western, which manages the station, said: "It does appear a bit chaotic but it all works and we're pleased it has been highlighted in this report."

 

[Dennis]

Never heard mixing traffic and pedestrians described as a safety feature!

 

[Nick W]

Just shows that we need less rules on the road.

However we must remember this sort of design only works where there are enough pedestrians at all times, and doesn't apply everywhere.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Its a great example of how things that more dangerous things are often safer since they encourage people to take more care. Too much safety often makes people careless and causes more accidents than it prevents. Another problem with safety is actual safety as opposed to real safety. The safest things tend to seem dangerous but actually are safe, wheras since safety sells these days things often seem safer than they are which is very dangerous. It's interesting that it talks about the way it makes pedestrians take more care aswell. Whilst the driver is usually the one scapegoated, in many collisions between pedestrians and motor vehicles the pedestrian is mostly or totally to blaim. Then again, a lot of that comes down to a culture of blaiming the person who comes off best (and particularly the almost unthinkable act of blaiming a dead person over another who walks away unharmed).