Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Cookies
 

Salmond unveils Cumbernauld Colourgalv Centre

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

February 28 2012

Salmond unveils Cumbernauld Colourgalv Centre
First Minister Alex Salmond has officially unveiled Highland Galvanizers and Colour Coaters £2.5m Colourglav Centre at Blairlinn industrial estate, Cumbernauld.

The new Centre, designed by the John Russell Partnership, will house office staff and an exhibition centre to showcase the bright colours and anti-corrosive properties that the galvanizing process brings to steel.

Highland recently announced that they would be applying their Colourgalv process to a drab Kilmarnock car park after it won their Brighten Scotland competition and have also been commissioned to provide coatings for signage at the panda enclosure of Edinburgh Zoo.

First Minister Alex Salmond said: "Highland is a terrific example of a home-grown Scottish company making progress and investing in its future with confidence.

“This new facility in Cumbernauld is a result of more than £1 million investment, and I'm pleased the Scottish Government has been able to provide some financial support.”

Geoff Crowley, managing director at Highland, said: “This has been a significant investment by Highland and not one we’ve taken lightly in the current economic climate.

“Despite the well-publicised problems in the construction industry, which is one of our main client sectors, we have continued to perform well and have stayed in the black.”
A 2,000sq/m factory extension has significantly boosted production
A 2,000sq/m factory extension has significantly boosted production
The First Minister is given a guided tour of the factory floor by Geoff Crowley
The First Minister is given a guided tour of the factory floor by Geoff Crowley

8 Comments

D to the R
#1 Posted by D to the R on 28 Feb 2012 at 21:34 PM
This is a dog ! Why are we promoting this c*** ... is the best scottish architects do? The wrong guys are getting jobs like these ...
R over D
#2 Posted by R over D on 29 Feb 2012 at 07:37 AM
Your criticism was very imprecise. What exactly is wrong with either the structure or the architect?
Egbert
#3 Posted by Egbert on 29 Feb 2012 at 09:17 AM
Where to start? It's pretty grim to be honest - looks like something off a Thames Valley business park from 1992. But hey ho, it's only an industrial estate in Cumbernauld so no-one will actually notice, right?
bacon
#4 Posted by bacon on 29 Feb 2012 at 13:49 PM
Have you seen it? Or have you seen only the concept image on here? So, you did start, and didn't actually state anything specific, other than in effect "I don't like it". It can't easy to design a building with over 100 internal partition configurations, such a high breaam rating, fulfilling the purpose and which got such a reception by the guests at the event yesterday.
So you said "...to be honest..." but were you being honest? Was that an informed comment?
Egbert
#5 Posted by Egbert on 29 Feb 2012 at 15:09 PM
@Bacon are you and 'R over D' the same person? I'm guessing you might have been involved with the project by the tone of your response and additional project data you seem to be party to, in which case I'm sorry to have offended. No, I don't really like it, and was just stating my opinion - an honest one, to answer your question.

Yes, it was chiefly an aesthetic judgement - I did go to the bother of looking at some proper photos on both the architect and clients' websites though rather than just the 'concept image' so I think I can say reasonably informed. I'm not sure quite what bearing the 100 internal partition configurations might have on the building's appearance (or indeed why it's particularly worthy of note). Likewise the 'high BREEAM rating' seems neither here nor there vis-a-vis my comments - lots of architects deal with this as a matter of routine. I have no doubt that people put hard work into this, like any other building - but I'm entitled to say I don't like the end result...
bacon
#6 Posted by bacon on 29 Feb 2012 at 16:16 PM
Of course anyone is entitled to an opinion, but criticism is received more constructively when defined. No-one can be forced to "like" anything, but when expressing that dislike its much more useful to describe its basis than just to sling negatives at it.
Yes I'm biassed, as I'm a user of that building, and was surprised at your dislike against so many very positive opinions about it so far expressed (not in this forum). And wondered about the basis of that dislike.
As to the architect, (opinion of "D to the R", that too seems an unqualified dislike. I'm not sure who the "we" is that D to the R claims is doing the promoting? Does that make D to the R a co-promoter, using the term "we" ?
Seems to me there are two judges of a building. Thos that give an opin ion based on only visual impression, and those that use it.
As a user, I like it; its versatility, warmth, flexibility, materials and more.
sultan of brooneye
#7 Posted by sultan of brooneye on 1 Mar 2012 at 16:31 PM
There I was, a few weeks back, being chastised for offering my opinion (one which was borderline critical of G. Hoskins project and practice) and my comment was removed. C'mon Urban Realm; keep the standards consistent - or are you a puppet of the popular? Surely comment #1 is a little personal…..
@ D to the R – don’t take that the wrong way; I think your comment should remain displayed – my issue is with Urban Realm.
urbanrealm
#8 Posted by urbanrealm on 1 Mar 2012 at 17:00 PM
The Hoskins comments were an extreme case and have been dealt with.

Here the initial crude remark was followed by an apology and a more considered response.

That was deemed sufficient in this instance. If you wish to flag particular comments for moderation you are free to do so.

Post your comments

 

All comments are pre-moderated and
must obey our house rules.

 

Back to February 2012

Search News
Subscribe to Urban Realm Magazine
Features & Reports
For more information from the industry visit our Features & Reports section.