Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Cookies
 

Deadline looms for Queen Street Station consultation

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

December 11 2014

Deadline looms for Queen Street Station consultation
A consultation period covering redevelopment of Glasgow’s Queen Street Stationwill conclude in a little under a fortnight when a feedback deadline expires on 22 December.

Opinions are being sought on Network Rails plan to overhaul the terminus to improve passenger facilities and facilitate capacity improvements. These include lift access to low level platforms, disabled access, new drop-off points and entrances whilst doubling floor space, improving circulation and adding new retail.

Conclusion of this process will see Network Rail submit a Transport and Works Scotland order request in June 2015 which it expects to be approved in June 2016 and redevelopment works commencing in January 2017.

Image by Soluis

12 Comments

Alan
#1 Posted by Alan on 11 Dec 2014 at 15:33 PM
'Conclusion of this process will see Network Rail submit a Transport and Works Scotland order request in June 2015 which it expects to be approved in June 2016 and redevelopment works commencing in January 2017.'

So no planning application?!...
Alan
#2 Posted by Alan on 11 Dec 2014 at 22:19 PM
Truly uninspiring design by a practice that can and has done a lot better. Appears to be a CGI of a concept idea. BDP, this is George Square, key civic space, not an isolated business park with no context!
Partick Bateman
#3 Posted by Partick Bateman on 12 Dec 2014 at 10:06 AM
There is something very 80's about this proposal...and not in a good way.
james
#4 Posted by james on 12 Dec 2014 at 10:34 AM
hmmm... what year in the 1980's was that? I seem to recall trying to wade my way out of the endless dreck of po-mo back then. In what sense do you mean 80's if I can ask nicely? I think the dominating oppressive roof element owes more to a mis-appropriated Jean Nouvel KKL building at lake Lucerne rather than George sq. Glasgow or for that matter, the science buildings down at the Clyde. I just think that this is about context yet again as #2 puts it. This appears to be a reductive soulless one-line signature building lacking in scale, depth, structure in relation to the character of George sq. and so on. I know we've had this conversation before (and I am even sounding like a planner)... but it is worth repeating. Irrespective that the railway are the crown estate they still have to go through the planning procedure esp in relation to the conservation area etc.
Alan
#5 Posted by Alan on 12 Dec 2014 at 10:44 AM
James, I'm pretty sure they will not have to submit for planning, although they may need conservation area consent, given that they are demolishing a building (even though unlisted) within a conservation area.
Murray
#6 Posted by Murray on 12 Dec 2014 at 14:40 PM
Alan, you are spot on.It is a key civic space .Heaven only knows we have had enough problems in getting the right solution for the space. this will not help one iota. You are right, it is a building design taking utterly no account of its context. It appears only to have any sympathy to the surroundings in terms of its colour. On practicalities, I would be grateful to know how you clean a sloping glass frontage
( show me anything similar in the area) when you have a sloping overhang of such large proportions which is both cumbersome and unsympathetic to anything around. The refurbs in George Sq ie Post Offic etc have been pretty successful in urban design terms. This may improve functionality but will add nothing to a square of more traditional buildings in scale, fenestration and proportion. I trust the City Planning department will negotiate something better as this is not good enough, Mr Barron !!
Sven
#7 Posted by Sven on 12 Dec 2014 at 17:34 PM
What happened to the glass only facade? It was simple and sympathetic as you could see the curved glass roof and accentuated it. The current design is clumsy, fussy, imposes and lacks elegance. Keep it simple please.
kevin toner
#8 Posted by kevin toner on 17 Dec 2014 at 10:51 AM
http://www.urbanrealm.com/news/3140/Alternate_Queen_Street_Station_vision_outlined.html#comment2772

My previous comment on this was as above for the article on the slightly better, nonetheless horrendous, alternative scheming Vs the cop-out original glass scheme.

I’m glad things have since moved on with some better debate starting.

Firstly, I still stand by inter alia:

1) exposing something of the original Georgian hotel return west elevation, which will help terminate Queen Street rather than losing it a block shorter before George Sq.; and

2) by all means widening the street at this head, ps with or without the potential architectural advantage of the office block, which gives the dear green place (of Glasgow) that one more legible city block c/o the Dundas Street - albeit a modest one nevertheless worth retaining as Glasgow is a ideally a ‘city of architecture’ rather than a ‘city of architecture fraying’...

Secondly, on the latest comments:-

I would disagree with putting off the notion of a monumental overhang or at least canopy – as that’s what distinguishes the classic Glasgow metropolitan train station.

What must be recognised by the DRs of urbanism, in their comments above, is that there should be a cognisance that the station is a component of urban engineering rather than that of architecture, and so a large overhang is to be commended – in fact, the proposal is not overhanging enough despite sloping the glass – bearing in mind that glass (as transparent) and/or other materials (in play) can provide other ways to strengthen the notion of ‘canopy’.

However, that said, the notion of a canopy is really the 2nd best to having the real thing (something that will actually keep visitors dry during wet).

I agree it should be a case of ‘back to the drg bd’, but even that may not work.

If Network Rail wants me to step in, I must warn that I’m not cheap!

Thirdly, it’s good that Urban Realm have sided this article with Haymarket, albeit a different scenario.
james
#9 Posted by james on 18 Dec 2014 at 09:46 AM
#8 - 'What must be recognised by the DRs (?) of urbanism, in their comments above, is that there should be a cognisance that the station is a component of urban engineering rather than that of architecture, and so a large overhang is to be commended ...' - What utter simplistic pants. Typical meaningless and shallow reductive pseudo-historicist argument. So then, what of the Pompidou centre in Paris? Engineering or architecture? Errrrrr......Both! Ya numpty! I mean, just look at this proposal! It is VOID of anything!
kevin toner
#10 Posted by kevin toner on 19 Dec 2014 at 09:46 AM
James, urban follies are acceptable in Paris - do your homework!

Don't bring it to Glasgow though, it doesn't even have a Parc de la Villette boasting any smaller ones, follies - though it might feel inclined to if the bigger ones are to start being accepted!

Please list your top Glasgow follies so far - do any compare with the Pompidou?

Grid car parks and shopping centres can get blocks of their own; or to maul respectively, but the Glasgow metropolitan train station is a hitherto skilled contained proposition for an urban strategy, and it should be kept this way if possible...

Got to go, rushed!
kevin toner
#11 Posted by kevin toner on 19 Dec 2014 at 11:31 AM
An anti Glasgow approach can indeed work James, but it has to be at somewhere like Pacific Quay not Dundas Street. Leave Dundas Street, Glasgow, alone!

Hasn’t enough of the townscape been taken away with the M8 IRR? Let’s leave it at that: why the desperation to fray what’s left of the Glasgow model into the bargain? Work around what’s been cultivated organically in the existing urban model, it’s really not that complex to apprehend.

Let’s not add the sub-layer (of intolerable trash) that strives to nullify a legibly cultivated urban model where it’ll hurt most. The motorways etc. are a blessing compared to the separate trashy layer that strives to eat upon what survives of the core urban model, which is unique and complex.

Dismissing Dundas Street in the way that the above proposal does is beyond comprehension.

Why now?

I’ll bring my fee down if it’ll help Network Rail appoint someone who is architecturally responsible.
james
#12 Posted by james on 19 Dec 2014 at 11:36 AM
Sorry K, not sure what that was all about re follies and Bernard Tschumi etc.? (ancient history) - I was only questioning your either/or take on this - that it is appropriate that the Queen St. terminal should be either a work of engineering (as befits the shed behind it), or a work of architecture. I am arguing for an approach that is both, hence my reference to the Pompidou Centre building and its contribution to the urban setting, or, come to think of it, St. Pancras. I think you've rather moved the goalposts.

Post your comments

 

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

 

Back to December 2014

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