12th September 2012

1. Car park design:
lessons of Design Review
David Tittle, Chief Executive, MADE
12th September 2012

2. July 2010, Leamington
2

3. July 2010, Leamington
“...the importance of good landscaping to the space
between the superstore and the office building; whilst
there will be parking with disabilities in this area, these
car spaces should be located informally within a park-
like setting rather than in a regimented row alongside a
straight access road.
The proposed tree planting in the main car park is
particularly welcome; it was suggested that the parking
layout be arranged in gentle curves to respond the
geometry of the office buildings.
The objective should be that this area between the
supermarket and offices is seen as a public space in
which cars are allowed to park rather than a car park
which the public are obliged to navigate.” 3

4. May 2010, Droitwich
4

5. May 2010, Droitwich
“The panel frequently has cause to comment on the
design of areas for car parking. If the area to the
rear of the new building is laid with tarmac and
marked out very rigidly with parking spaces it will
simply be a car park, and seen as a utilitarian
service space. It is possible however, to think of
these spaces as amenity areas in which cars are
allowed to park. For example the panel frequently
suggests the use of more relaxed materials such as
loose or bonded gravel, but in this case that might
appear too rustic. Perhaps a more urban
‘courtyard-garden’ feel with paving sets and
contained planting might be considered.”
5

6. February 2010, Sandwell
6

7. February 2010, Sandwell
The Panel offered the suggestion that two
groups of three houses could be arranged on
the southern corner with their back gardens
together, while the north west corner (which is
the least favourable area for locating homes
and gardens) could then accommodate all the
parking.
The number of car spaces in the layout may
exceed demand, but if this area is designed in an
informal way, with generous tree planting and
(say) a bound gravel surface, it could be an
attractive amenity area when not parked up to its
capacity.
7

8. January 2010, Redditch
8

9. January 2010, Redditch
it was concerned that this central courtyard
could be dominated by regimented car parking,
with the communal meeting and play area
marooned in the centre. It suggested that the
courtyard be designed and surfaced as one
attractive area, with car spaces tucked into
informal discreet groupings around the
development. In general, it suggested an
informal approach to the hard landscaping with
minimal definition of roads, pavements and
parking bays.
•
9

10. September 2010, Redditch
10

11. September 2010, Redditch
The new layout has significantly changed in
response to the comments made by the panel
in January, notably the creation of a more
sensitive people oriented public realm. The
housing layout now creates a single cohesive
scheme that faces into a shared space not
dominated by road geometries or parking
bays.
11

12. February 2012,
Newcastle-under-Lyme
12

13. February 2012,
Newcastle-under-Lyme
The panel’s feeling was that the developer and local
authority should work together on a major landscape
design and improvement initiative for the site and its
environs. This should be led by a firm with specific
expertise in landscape design and should precede the
design of the car park. Further tree-planting on the
slopes could be part of this.
Such a landscape study would help determine the form
of the car park. We would like to see the current
regimented arrangement broken up and consideration
given to how users walk across the car park once they
leave their cars. The windswept nature of the car park
needs to be mitigated by suitable planting. 13

14. conclusions
• how can we create space for cars
which is not hard, geometrical,
dominant?
• not just technical - cultural
14