Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Cookies
 

Plans submitted for Pacific Quay Premier Inn

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

July 20 2012

Plans submitted for Pacific Quay Premier Inn
A planning application to erect a 180 bed Premier Inn on a brownfield site at Pacific Quay, Glasgow, has been submitted by Lawrence McPherson Associates.

Designed on behalf of Whitbread PLC the six storey scheme will incorporate a new public space linking through to Bells Bridge.

Contemporary in nature the development will reinforce a strong building line to the south bank of the river Clyde whilst transitioning in height between the adjacent BBC Scotland HQ and STV studios.

A glazed extension protruding along the riverfront will also provide an external dining area.

Stringent energy efficiency targets ensure that carbon emissions will be reduced by up to 26% by 2020 versus current hotels.
A landscaped link will be created connecting with the existing Bell's Bridge
A landscaped link will be created connecting with the existing Bell's Bridge
Lawrence McPherson have completed a number of Premier Inn's for Whitbread around the country
Lawrence McPherson have completed a number of Premier Inn's for Whitbread around the country

31 Comments

wonky
#1 Posted by wonky on 20 Jul 2012 at 14:59 PM
Clad it in Grey! Grey Cladding! Grey! Grey! Grey! Clad it Grey! I demand to know if they plan to clad this new hotel Grey! This image does not instill me with a lot of confidence- why is it so far away? Is someone embarrassed about something? It isn't even born yet and already its an architectural orphan...ah well...clad it in grey and no one will notice.
David
#2 Posted by David on 20 Jul 2012 at 15:24 PM
We Want Architecture Not Boxes!
Robert
#3 Posted by Robert on 20 Jul 2012 at 16:53 PM
I quite like
I think it fits in quite well with chipperfiels bbc building
df
#4 Posted by df on 20 Jul 2012 at 16:55 PM
the building on the left bred with the building on the right and got the building in the middle
Robert
#5 Posted by Robert on 21 Jul 2012 at 23:12 PM
Awful waste of an opportunity. Hey- there's already two boxes- a nice one and one not so nice- let's go for an even worse one, with staggered mullions and a cafe that's inaccessible from the walkway, and grey to match the skies. Bah!
Robert
#6 Posted by Robert on 21 Jul 2012 at 23:17 PM
While I'm at it, can we have someone proof-reading this stuff? Premier Inn's?
Ross
#7 Posted by Ross on 24 Jul 2012 at 09:52 AM
In a city which predominantly has grey skies-don't clad it in grey! In fact just don't clad it! Surely a budget must allow some use of stone?
Rem Koolbag
#8 Posted by Rem Koolbag on 24 Jul 2012 at 11:12 AM
And do what with the stone Ross?
David
#9 Posted by David on 24 Jul 2012 at 14:25 PM
I suspect he means clad it in stone, which I suspect is well beyond the budget.

However I totally agree with the criticisms. The facades are very dull, and lack any character or excitement especially given their location, and visibility. What is especially concerning me is the lack of any interaction with context at ground floor (mainly blank grey panels). 'A glazed extension protruding along the river front' is clearly an innacurate description of what the 3D image actually shows. Too many architects seem to write descriptions of their proposals which flatter to deceive.
Rem Koolbag
#10 Posted by Rem Koolbag on 24 Jul 2012 at 15:04 PM
Yes, I figured that too, however he says 'Don't clad it' which is a bit odd if he then wants it clad in stone. My other thought was he expects full masonry construction here, solid blocks of stone etc.

Which would then be a whole different argument and beyond even the wildest budget/sense of reality....

Kind of like most of the comments on here.

Oh, and for the record, I agree that its pretty poor. In fact very poor.
Ross
#11 Posted by Ross on 25 Jul 2012 at 10:43 AM
I am sure the use of stone could be incorporated imaginatively into the building to reflect the use of stone tradititionally used in Glasgow.

Those are just my lay mans comments.

context
#12 Posted by context on 25 Jul 2012 at 11:30 AM
Is this not on an old industrial site in glasgow? How exactly is stone appropriate in this context?
I agree that the building doesn't look good, but cladding it in stone would add nothing but expense to an already poor scheme
Rem Koolbag
#13 Posted by Rem Koolbag on 25 Jul 2012 at 14:12 PM
Layman's comments - make it out of stone.

We hear this sort of basic drivel all the time when something new is proposed in Glasgow. Put up any old crap as long as some rubbish flat stone cladding is farted up in to place to make it look like an oldie-times building.

I have even heard comments that the transport museum should have been a stone clad shed. Now, think what you will of the Riverside Museum, but really, is this the level of debate and sophistication in this country?

The scheme on show here is poor. There is no doubt about that, however this would not be rectified by cladding it in stone, and the sooner lay people and those who procure buildings in this country evolve beyond these simple good/bad switches the better the built envirnonment will be.

Rant over.
ROSS
#14 Posted by ROSS on 26 Jul 2012 at 12:40 PM
and what a rant it was.
David
#15 Posted by David on 26 Jul 2012 at 15:41 PM
I second your rant Rem Koolbag. No matter what material this scheme is finished in it will still fail as a quality piece of architecture.

A total wasted opportunity on a fantastic site, with a fantastic neighbouring building in the BBC.
Rem Koolbag
#16 Posted by Rem Koolbag on 26 Jul 2012 at 16:30 PM
Well, it was certainly better than just trotting out the old line that stone will make everything better.

Shit buildings get clad in stone too.
Ross
#17 Posted by Ross on 26 Jul 2012 at 22:00 PM
Examples of ugly stone clad buildings ?

I still believe that stone buildings offer a substantial appearance, and hopefully Glasgow will continue to leave an architectural heritage to future generations. Sheet metal cladding is fine- in an old industrial park in suburbs, not a feature on the River Clyde.
Ross
#18 Posted by Ross on 26 Jul 2012 at 22:00 PM
Examples of ugly stone clad buildings ?

I still believe that stone buildings offer a substantial appearance, and hopefully Glasgow will continue to leave an architectural heritage to future generations. Sheet metal cladding is fine- in an old industrial park in suburbs, not a feature on the River Clyde.
context
#19 Posted by context on 26 Jul 2012 at 23:00 PM
haha, this is one of the most famous industrial areas in the uk, but apparently that doesn't matter because it's in glasgow and the only successful buildings in glasgow are stone?!

Have you ever been to glasgow before ross?
Rem Koolbag
#20 Posted by Rem Koolbag on 27 Jul 2012 at 09:45 AM
Restaurant/residential corner of Ingram St/Glassford St

Residential/empty commercial Glassford Street

Commercial/residential Waterloo st/Wellington St

Clydesdale Bank same junction

SSE headquarters Hope St/Waterloo Street

Entire swathes of Kilmarnock Road on South Side

These are examples purely on aesthetics and as such are subjective. They are also mostly new buildings. Again, subjectively you could choose many victorian buildings purely on aesthitics.

Ross, you mention ugly buildings, where I said 'shit' buildings. Different things. Visually ugly buildings can still engage with context and create interesting public spaces for examples. Shit buildings dont, and no amount of stone cladding will fix that.
is this it?
#21 Posted by is this it? on 30 Jul 2012 at 08:25 AM
Ross raises a fair point - Glasgow as a city with such strong Victorian heritage - mainly built of stone (and brick to that matter)... deserves more stone as testament to its past and as a material that sparkles and works with the local lighting and climate. Obviously crap buildings can me made of stone too - but as a quality, contextual and durable material it is made to last... The majority of buildings which are built these days are made of materials and systems that have a limited life span, which does not help foster a good built environment.
dirige
#22 Posted by dirige on 30 Jul 2012 at 10:27 AM
Do you even know where this site is? You would have to walk for a fair few yonks before you find another building made in this stone 'context' you speak of.
Boab
#23 Posted by Boab on 30 Jul 2012 at 11:05 AM
.....er.....With the exception of Govan Town Hall which is an interesting Historic Listed Build and just up the road.

I dont know why were even discussing this. The Client has a budget and he sure aint going to make any more funds available to clad it in “Fake” stone just for fun
Boab
#24 Posted by Boab on 30 Jul 2012 at 11:13 AM
oh.... and Buro Happolds Offices and the Rotunda which i think are both historic listed buildings on the site
context
#25 Posted by context on 30 Jul 2012 at 11:24 AM
while we're at it, let's get the finnieston crane clad in stone, I mean, it just looks so out of place in that area of glasgow!
dirige
#26 Posted by dirige on 30 Jul 2012 at 11:33 AM
Boab, Burro Happold offices and the Rotunda are made in 'brick'. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Rem Koolbag
#27 Posted by Rem Koolbag on 30 Jul 2012 at 11:37 AM
I think the point here, as I have stated before, is that it is far too simple a solution to say 'lets clad the building in stone' and forget that it's massing, orientation, position on site, landscaping, accessibility etc all have an impact far greater (and negative) on 'context'

It is too simplistic to think that material alone make a good building. When I say good I am not meaning aesthetically good either. Before material is even considered, the points mentioned above, along with many more, need to be addressed and resolved well.

The examples of stone buildings given by Boab are good buildings not only because they are built of stone but because they perform(ed) their function in a manner fitting with the wider context. The historical grain of the area, the streetscape, the social aspirations of the time etc.

Context's point about cladding the crane in stone is a good one - it's material and its form match perfectly it's function. To alter this is to deny the true nature of the thing. To lie for aesthetic reasons only.

Why do so many aspire to live in a mock tudor cottage, built in 2012 of modern materials procured in an environmentally responsible, supply-chain-managed way, drawn to the mm on a computer drafting system etc, at the same time parking their technologically advanced car made of aluminium and carbon fibre, running energy efficient fuels in the (cobbled) drive. These are the same people who often accuse (!) architects of only being concerned with aesthetics!
Didier
#28 Posted by Didier on 30 Jul 2012 at 14:42 PM
== This comment has been removed for contravening UR's t&c's of comment ==
Marksss
#29 Posted by Marksss on 30 Jul 2012 at 15:23 PM
Architectural cliché’s that im fed up of hearing from the public:

“its out of scale”

“a flat roof? In Scotland? That’ll never work...”

“theres no sense of history to it”

“humans just aren’t meant to live in tall buildings”

“that could be anywhere in the world”

and yes, "why don't you build a nice traditional stone building?"
Markie
#30 Posted by Markie on 16 Aug 2012 at 11:46 AM
BOOOOOOOOORING!! I bet they put a car park behind it as well
o( o . . O )o
^
David McMaster
#31 Posted by David McMaster on 16 Aug 2012 at 11:55 AM
Have you seen the new St. Andrews House Deep Purple Hotel? Glasgow is filling up with these awful new hotel buildings. What is going on?

Post your comments

 

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

 

Back to July 2012

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