Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Privacy
 

Dunlop to call for relaxation of planning rules

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

June 22 2012

Dunlop to call for relaxation of planning rules
Alan Dunlop is to call for a relaxation of planning rules in his home city of Glasgow at an international architecture and urban design conference to be held in Shanghai this October.

Masterplanning the Future, will invite practices from the UK, Europe and America; including Schmidt Hammer Lassen and RTKL, to assemble in the Chinese metropolis  - which some argue has been repeating the mistakes made by Glasgow and other Western cities in the sixties and seventies with its demolition of traditional hutong neighbourhoods.

In an abstract of his conference paper, seen by Urban Realm, Dunlop writes: “Failed master plans coupled with the destruction of historic buildings has delivered a rise in interest in conservation and attempts to protect older buildings, regardless of their quality or utility, leading to a stock of empty and often decaying older buildings in the city centre.

“Planning applications for new buildings in the West End of the city, perhaps its most notable concentration of complete and authentic historical buildings, will attract thousands of recommendations for rejection. In the city centre it is nigh on impossible to put forward any building proposal that alters the Victorian grid or proposes demolition of an older building or facade.

“Although Glasgow is considered a centre of contemporary architecture, the city is highly resistant to any change in its historic fabric. In my view, an overreaction to the legacy of the ills wrought by the master planners of the previous generation.”

14 Comments

Rossco
#1 Posted by Rossco on 22 Jun 2012 at 13:20 PM
So he is heading out to Shanghai to give a talk on the ill’s of destroying the historic fabric of a city but then complains that he cant knock down historic buildings in his own city.

I would say ‘Oxy’ but nah I’ll just say, what a m****.
Neil
#2 Posted by Neil on 22 Jun 2012 at 13:27 PM
I agree with this.
Failed master plans coupled with the destruction of historic buildings has delivered a rise in interest in conservation and attempts to protect older buildings, regardless of their quality or utility, leading to a stock of empty and often decaying older buildings in the city centre.
the other Neil
#3 Posted by the other Neil on 22 Jun 2012 at 14:09 PM
Fascinating insight there #2.
Gordon
#4 Posted by Gordon on 22 Jun 2012 at 14:15 PM
Perhaps if thousands of people are objecting to your new buildings, the problem is the buildings you're proposing, rather than the system...? ;-)
Neil
#5 Posted by Neil on 22 Jun 2012 at 15:12 PM
Raddison blu is a brilliant building IMO was there for the Scottish design awards
h.a.
#6 Posted by h.a. on 22 Jun 2012 at 15:28 PM
Glasgow is not a centre of contemporary architecture, and most recent buildings in the city centre are really really bad. This is partly due to a horrible planning policy, but also to lack of opportunities for good architects, being all the development in hands of mega offices only concerned about income
planner
#7 Posted by planner on 22 Jun 2012 at 15:45 PM
Strange comments from Professor D, considering he has been one of the beneficiaries of an enlightened planning policy in this city and in return from which Glasgow has also benefited in a few of great buildings. One of which is the Radisson Blu agreed and The Sentinel
Marcela
#8 Posted by Marcela on 22 Jun 2012 at 15:57 PM
I really do not think that Glasgow has a particularly solid reputation for architectural conservation - more for crudely executed facade retention. What Mr Dunlop should be pointing out is the lack of quality in both new and renovated buildings in the city. As h.a says there are not enough opportunities for good architects - driven by a planning department that pays no attention to design or indeed basic principles of urban design. (sorry but I fail to see the contribution of the supposed City Design Advisor).
Marcela
#9 Posted by Marcela on 22 Jun 2012 at 15:57 PM
I really do not think that Glasgow has a particularly solid reputation for architectural conservation - more for crudely executed facade retention. What Mr Dunlop should be pointing out is the lack of quality in both new and renovated buildings in the city. As h.a says there are not enough opportunities for good architects - driven by a planning department that pays no attention to design or indeed basic principles of urban design. (sorry but I fail to see the contribution of the supposed City Design Advisor).
Neil
#10 Posted by Neil on 22 Jun 2012 at 16:03 PM
I think the City Design Advisor role started as an important position but has been increasingly reduced and is now devalued
Hugh K
#11 Posted by Hugh K on 22 Jun 2012 at 17:14 PM
Actually in my view Glasgow has a better stock of well designed modern buildings than most. The juxtaposition of new and old works well particularly in the Victorian city. I would agree that although I was sceptical that the Radisson Hotel is an excellent example of new design that works well on many levels, also on urban design terms. On the other hand, the building known as the bacofoil building by the same architect is an affront.
Stuart
#12 Posted by Stuart on 23 Jun 2012 at 18:13 PM
Let's face it. Even architects can't decide what good architecture is. Some think the Radisson is good, and I (also an architect) happen to think it's a load of shape-making, look-at-me cr*p. If even we can't resolve that debate then what hope for the planners.
Having been at the Velvet and Silk Cafe the other night we had to sit through two awful projects being described to us. One, that testosterone fuelled Hoskins house, and the other the GMA/Ryder Crime Campus - designed, apparently, around a chromosome and some DNA...
Architectural education obviously isn't good enough (most of the people producing this stuff are tutors!).
Planning in Glasgow is quite obviously clueless as well. Evidence: everywhere, but the Clydeside in particular.
God help us.
Boab
#13 Posted by Boab on 24 Jun 2012 at 18:52 PM
Remember Hutchie E ?
Another case of Architects thinking we know what is good and what is bad. When in actual fact it was nothing but a croc of *#@p
We are no better today.
On another note Ryder had nothing to do with the crime campus.
Christopher Auld
#14 Posted by Christopher Auld on 24 Jun 2012 at 19:22 PM
This is an interesting converstation on a number of levels, even if only to allow some to once again vent their spleen and show their ignorance. I agree the Velvet and Silk presentations were disappointing, most of all the house by Gareth Hoskins. A prime example of throwing money around does not guarantee design quaility. The Crime Campus was also a let down but to base a buildings design development upon stands of DNA is criminal, so perhaps it is valid after all. GMA had little to do with the crime campus either. The designer now works with Holmes Miller and it was a joint Murray Dunlop BMJ project.

Post your comments

 

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

 

Back to June 2012

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