Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Cookies
 

‘Shovel ready’ Egyptian Halls redevelopment wins planning

Send to friend

* Required fields

Visual CAPTCHA
This step helps prevent unfair use of automated programs.
Enter the word as it is shown in the box above.
Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

December 20 2012

‘Shovel ready’ Egyptian Halls redevelopment wins planning
Derek Souter, the developer behind the planned redevelopment of Alexander Thomson’s Egyptian Halls to form a new hotel, is celebrating an early Christmas present after Glasgow City Council confirmed that the latest planning application had been approved.

The application was fast tracked following collaboration with Historic Scotland, project architects TMP and TPS planning consultants.

With listed building consent likely to be granted early in the New Year Souter describes the project as ‘shovel ready’, but must still plug an estimated deficit of between £4m and £11.5m in the £20m scheme before this can happen.

Should financing be arranged Souter states that work to transform the upper levels of the building into a 114 room hotel and remodel the ground floor for bar and restaurant use, could commence ‘immediately’.

Souter said: “Early in 2013 it’s the combined responsibility of all project stakeholders to deliver the self-financing funding package, which both preserves and returns to commercial sustainability the Egyptian Halls after a 32-year impasse.”

9 Comments

Art Vandelay
#1 Posted by Art Vandelay on 20 Dec 2012 at 12:35 PM
Good news...but how on earth could a project with a potential £11.5 million shortfall be anywhere near 'shovel ready'?!
wonky
#2 Posted by wonky on 20 Dec 2012 at 13:58 PM
Good news if we can save such a great city icon...how long will the big red ribbon stay on though? It won't look good once it starts to fray at the edges...
David Brodie
#3 Posted by David Brodie on 20 Dec 2012 at 14:09 PM
"shovel ready" is based on Planning Permission being in place, which is the definition the Scottish Government is using. Then funding is required, which can be also be low as £4M
Art Vandelay
#4 Posted by Art Vandelay on 20 Dec 2012 at 14:26 PM
Given its location it'll need to be self cleaning...
kevin toner
#5 Posted by kevin toner on 20 Dec 2012 at 19:43 PM
Urban Realm (UR), whether or not it’s you’re doing to use the word “redevelopment”, can’t you undo/redevelop it, and replace it with something like conversion, renovation, etc.

This meek and weak buzzword was actually [rightly] associated with the 1960s clearances, in line with the related C20th dictionary definition ‘to [re]build or prepare land for [re]building’, as in demolition and replacement. This [built environment] word instantly differentiates between what’s to be conserved and not. A genuine urbanist, UR, should really want this word around untarnished!

I’ve mentioned before what might be the cause of the misuse, but I cannot fathom the meekness behind common misuse, not among some of the public or laypersons, but amongst the learned. I’D HOPE THAT ANY ‘LEARNED’ CULPRITS COULD COME FORWARD AND REVEAL WHY, THEY’D KNOW? Merely confusion is to be inherited! The word is best to remain as it was originally defined!

Yes, the confused can’t get any more confused, but why try to confuse the unconfused?

Good Luck UR if you’ll not be changing your tact. We should be debating architecture/urbanism here not language misuse!

The wor[l]d is you’re oyster!

Don’t worry UR, I’ve also told off BD in the same fortnight for the same slip up!
Art Vandelay
#6 Posted by Art Vandelay on 20 Dec 2012 at 20:55 PM
Jeezo. It's Christmas, lighten up Kev!
ooctopus
#7 Posted by ooctopus on 21 Dec 2012 at 11:22 AM
I would suggest that when correcting someone else's use of language that one should understand the difference between your and you're. Anyway without bothering to look at the planning application drawings I say bah humbug to it all.
sustainable Steve
#8 Posted by sustainable Steve on 21 Dec 2012 at 18:35 PM
Does it really bother you that much Kevin? i think most readers understand the use of the word. Personally I think it's great and will hopefully spark investment for the rest of Union Street.
kevin toner
#9 Posted by kevin toner on 22 Dec 2012 at 16:54 PM
ooctopus, thanks for flagging up my spelling error, it completely escaped me during editing.

sustainable Steve, my compulsion derives from the fact that, having worded the petition to help save this very building..., I unwittingly used the word "redevelopment" in its overarching sense (to mean demolish and replace with) without realising how ingrained the world had become in buzzing up this buzzword in a wider light. I hadn't really been paying attention to the present day willy nilly use of the word, until it fully dawned on me, half a year later, that respectable periodicals were beginning to follow suit. Hence, my efforts in drawing attention to it wherever I could: not to condone or justify the wording of the aforementioned petition, but to promote how the word was once widely used, both publicly and in the field.

Art Vanderlay: will do!

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.