Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Cookies
 

110 Queen Street set for January start after funding secured

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

December 14 2012

110 Queen Street set for January start after funding secured
A speculative Glasgow office block is to go ahead after securing a £50m funding package; including £40.4m from BAM and a £9.6m loan from the Scottish Government and European Regional Development Fund via the Scottish Partnership for Regeneration in Urban Centres.

It means contractors can move on site in January to bring the process of demolishing a former bank to create 143,000sq/ft of grade A office space and 20,000sq/ft of retail space.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “Significant city centre developments like today’s £50 million boost for Glasgow are central to stimulating economic growth across Scotland. 

“The transformation of this building will provide much needed high spec office space for Glasgow, which will enable it to compete more effectively with other large cities – and help to attract companies from across the globe.”

John Burke, Executive Director, BAM Construct UK, added: “This is terrific news for Glasgow and the wider construction sector, and is testament to the confidence investors have that BAM can deliver the largest office development to be built outside of London in a number of years.”

To be developed and built by BAM and designed by Cooper Cromar the project was approved back in February following a fast-track planning process and is scheduled for completion in 2015.

12 Comments

David
#1 Posted by David on 14 Dec 2012 at 16:07 PM
Actually that picture highlights that EVEN the existing building looks better than the completely out of context new proposals. Glass curves in a stone grid...
Egbert
#2 Posted by Egbert on 19 Dec 2012 at 10:46 AM
Wait, is that the actual proposal? I'd assumed it was just a 3D block massing diagram - where's the articulation on the elevations? Agree with David - the feeble wibble along Ingram Street only serves to undermine the discipline of the street grid, and it goes without saying that the black glass elevation treatment is totally inappropriate for the setting. Poor show.
David
#3 Posted by David on 19 Dec 2012 at 11:25 AM
I can't help thinking the Holmes scheme would have been far better received. A bit safe perhaps, but a strong rectilinear stone building that, unlike this scheme, respected and celebrated it's context.

Putting aside the contextual material and shape issues, if this curtain wall clad building isn't of the highest quality it runs the risk of looking extremely shabby extremely quickly. Did GCC give in too easily given current economic conditions? I think so.
Sandstone For Life
#4 Posted by Sandstone For Life on 19 Dec 2012 at 12:56 PM
Out of context. Totally Inappropriate. Disrespectful.

Must we always mirror context?

If we are only ever respecting our context, where does innovation come in? I don't think playing safe is the way to go on a site like this.

Our built environment is what it is because it was new and inventive at its time. If were always respecting and never changing then what we create is rather redundant in my opinion.






kevin toner
#5 Posted by kevin toner on 19 Dec 2012 at 15:23 PM
#4 SFL, interesting that the word mirror is used here.

An observation (or lesson) if I may:-

That's exactly what the existing building has been doing all along, but by mirroring the character of its most significant surroundings, not too dissimilar to Charlotte Ho. along a bit on the same side..., i.e. the original building addresses and adds to the majority of lower massing around the GOMA & then provides a mirrored massing to the rear street to answer the PO Building and the high (deeply channelled) Miller Street corridor. It’s part of our heritage and part of the conservation area that it obviously belongs to...,

You might call the original a naturally veritable Conservation Area Enhancement. Yet, it was designed ironically before the advent of the current CA. What’s going on?

It is tremendously visionary and extremely respectful of the urban grain! So much so that the presence it’s offered on all three of its sides over the decades will be missed when it’s replaced...

Its replacement will redefine the urban complexity and richness of how a renowned square converges with its surrounding streets. Fine for Glassford Street, but not here on this part of Queen Street: poor show!

Who do we blame for this one?
wonky
#6 Posted by wonky on 19 Dec 2012 at 16:17 PM
Sandstone I agree with you to a certain extent. The problem is: architects and planners thought like that in the 60s..."we represent modernity, any nod to what went before is just pastiche, in fact the past just has to go- we are the gatekeepers of futurism...yadayadayada" Was the kind of attitude we got back then.
I am certainly not against innovation- the building across the road from this site is a 40s Art Deco design that was no doubt viewed similarly in its time...but I do think this might be a bit OTT in such a sensitive key juncture of the city...it smacks of big Ego starchitect not giving two hoots for contextuality..."Here look at me! Look how clever I am!"
I thought the previous sandstone design was more in keeping with the area.
I hope I'm wrong nevertheless and it is viewed with delight in a few years time and goes onto add to the aesthetic appeal of this part of the city.
Kevin
#7 Posted by Kevin on 19 Dec 2012 at 16:29 PM
I agree with #4.

The context referred to is in fact a hotch-potch of various styles (Queen St/Ingram St). It abuts one sandstone block, it replaces a 1960s concrete monolith, it stands across from another brutal concrete office block (Charlotte House) and points towards GOMA, the most important structure in this composition of buildings.

If anything the glazed facade is quite understated in its context. Is it an inside-out building? Sit at your desk and see panoramic views over Royal Exchange Square.

I don't imagine that even Cooper Cromar will expect this to win a Stirling Prize, but it adds variety to an already varied streetscape.

For the sandstone fetishists - Glasgow isn't a UNESCO site...
kevin toner
#8 Posted by kevin toner on 19 Dec 2012 at 17:23 PM
this is the kind of proposal you get when you let the meek inherit the Earth.
Kevin
#9 Posted by Kevin on 20 Dec 2012 at 12:04 PM
In the Kingdom of the skint, the man with a pound in his pocket is King.

If there is blame #3, I'd land it at the feet of the developer. As architects, in a difficult climate, we've sometimes got to dilute our principles in order just to survive.

There are far, far, far, far worse buildings being built across Glasgow than this one. Be thankful that it is in fact Glasgow - I'd bet you my house that if this building was in Aberdeen, it would win a civic award.
Brian
#10 Posted by Brian on 20 Dec 2012 at 21:52 PM
More suited to Riverside in Glasgow!ther surrounding buildings justbdont blend in at all do they!No the present building is more acceptable just put couple of neon lights on it and it will be more in line with whats happening now /errrrm
John Cowie
#11 Posted by John Cowie on 21 Dec 2012 at 14:07 PM
I don't mind it.
But could we please drop the utterly naff cone on the head of the statue, cringing embarrassment, cliche?
Would you have that on a statue in any major European city. PLace de la Concorde?
It is just so common.
wonky
#12 Posted by wonky on 22 Dec 2012 at 13:06 PM
No major modern European city should have statues either glorifying or depicting war, Colonial Empire or even its harbingers like Wellington- who cares about Place de la Concorde? Glasgow is a city of the People. No Elitism. A great democratic city that opposes all enclosure and promotes openness no matter your background- that is the difference from the inherent Classism of Capitals like Edinburgh or Paris- where its often a case of: "We are a superior and these symbols in OUR space are proof of that fact."
Glasgow should replace all these Victorian statues with something more suitable and modern- as they should rename some of the streets: Frederick Street, Hanover Street, Saint Vincent Street, Waterloo Street, Wellington Street, Waterloo Street etc could be changed for something more modern and democratic.
We should oppose the Psychology of Classism everywhere it manifests itself.
Personally I think the statue of war-mongering early risers like the Duke of Wellington is naff in itself...

Post your comments

 

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

 

Back to December 2012

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