Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Cookies
 

Re-jigged Glasgow Harbour plans recommended for approval despite backlash

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

April 21 2015

Re-jigged Glasgow Harbour plans recommended for approval despite backlash
Amended plans by property developer Dandara to build 348 flats for private rental in the final phase of its gh2o development have been recommended for approval by planners despite sparking a negative backlash from politicians and locals.

Plans drawn up by Axis Mason Architecture had called for an L-shaped block rising to 16 storeys for the waterfront plot, massing which is retained for the latest iteration albeit skinned in acid etched pre-cast reconstructed Portland stone and granite coloured panels, rather than the bronze variety shown previously.

It follows receipt of withering commentary on the initial scheme with Sandra White, MSP for Glasgow Kelvin, warning that the scheme ‘could create a building reminiscent of a monolith.’

Responding to such criticisms however city planners observed: “Issues of scale, massing, design, materials and density have been fully evaluated and are considered to accord with the design criteria of Glasgow City Plan 2.

“The proposal provides the opportunity to deliver a much needed retail and commercial presence to a large neighbourhood which, at present, is devoid of any such services and will facilitate the delivery of another section of the Clyde Walkway.

“On this basis, it is accepted that the proposal meets the policy requirements of Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan and Glasgow City Plan 2 and there are no material considerations that would outweigh this conclusion.”

16 Comments

James Tallent
#1 Posted by James Tallent on 21 Apr 2015 at 12:51 PM
It looks fine. The people of Glasgow will have to get over their hangups about high rises. The council blocks constructed in the 50s, 60s and 70s were built to a very cheap standard, with Labour councillors deliberately deciding to approve a cost per unit which was much lower than in comparable cities, such as Newcastle and Belfast. That is why Glasgow ended up with so many cheaply built tower blocks. While these Dandara blocks are not luxurious, they do NOT fall below accweptable standards. Finally, unlike the corporation blocks, they WILL be maintained; otherwise tenants will look elsewhere.
SJF
#2 Posted by SJF on 21 Apr 2015 at 13:02 PM
Well, I look forward to seeing this in 30 years time (if it makes it that long!!!). I'm sure it will mature like a fine wine.
wonky
#3 Posted by wonky on 21 Apr 2015 at 13:45 PM
that's all very good James but for me the main question concerns location: why are we building these fairly large structures in the middle of nowhere? We have so many gapsites-brownfield areas in/around city centre.
Sue Pearman
#4 Posted by Sue Pearman on 21 Apr 2015 at 13:49 PM
I have to say James, you've obviously not seen how the last of the Dandara blocks was build, with the terracotta and granite cladding replaced with painted blockwork ... is that the acceptable standard you think we should be aspiring to?
The overall form and massing of this proposal pays no attention whatsover to the adjacent constructed phases, which despite the degradation of quality in the latter phase, was at least designed as a convincing ensemble. This disregard coupled with the poorer finishes dandara used latterely makes most of us fear for the worst with this development.
james
#5 Posted by james on 21 Apr 2015 at 14:58 PM
Scotland a colony, colonised by London capital. This is what unfettered market forces look like. There's no there, there, suffice to say, not that that matters of course. Thank God is all I can say for the cognoscenti and their 'design criteria', otherwise where would we be?
Roddy
#6 Posted by Roddy on 21 Apr 2015 at 21:26 PM
@#4 Don't pay any heed to James' bibble Sue.

His regular posts on here sort of remind me of the diatribes of Kevin Turvey or the "wisdoms" of Jeff Albertson.

Anyone with half a brain that can get one eye open can see this scheme for what it is : woeful in every respect.
james
#7 Posted by james on 22 Apr 2015 at 10:26 AM
Dear Rodders (#6) (troll), should you care to think about it (it'd be a first, I know), I think you'll find that I (#5) am James and that I am not (#1) James Tallent, whose argument you have clearly taken apart with your infantile and jaded name-calling.
Glad I've cleared that one up. Have a nice day.

However, thanks for prompting me to say something further:
that I see no difference between this and Michael Laird's Bothwell street Proposals and CC's 110 Queen Street. Any talk of architecture here is meaningless against this anti-cultural nihilism. We are at the mercy here of capital and in light of the current election, we can see clearly what the Union is for: in that it is far far easier for the capital of an over-heated london economy to move out to other 'regions' within the legislative and bureaucratic control of a Westminster government, than it is to move out to another country altogether and THAT is Scotland's 'use' to the UK.

I would humbly suggest that what we are looking at here has very little to do with architecture.
Big Chantelle
#8 Posted by Big Chantelle on 22 Apr 2015 at 11:09 AM
Concrete.Modernism.At.Its.Glorious.Best.

And by best, I mean terrible.

You guys, and your lefty architecture views all encouraged this stuff. And now you moan about it.lol.

Stone built Glasgow tenements (traditional architecture) = 1

Cheap, panel clad boxy modernist 'luxury living' (contemporary architecture) = 0
neil
#9 Posted by neil on 22 Apr 2015 at 11:12 AM
For once I agree with Big Chantelle!
Roddy
#10 Posted by Roddy on 22 Apr 2015 at 13:16 PM
@#7 Thank you for pointing out my error. Both posts , it has to be said , are so far wide of the mark as to be out of sight....

If you posted anything vaguely sensible, interesting or knowledgeable or proffered some decent arguments about , well ...anything I would not have to resort to ad hominem criticisms.
Charlie_
#11 Posted by Charlie_ on 22 Apr 2015 at 16:02 PM
As he invariably does wonky hits the nail on the head - surely the big issue here isn't the standard of build (which doesn't to my eyes look materially worse than the earlier phases) but the sheer illogic of yet more high density housing marooned between an uncrossable river and a highway. Especially in a city with so many vacant sites - including sites owned by Peel! - near to existing neighbourhoods.
Edward Harkins
#12 Posted by Edward Harkins on 23 Apr 2015 at 09:28 AM
"The people of Glasgow will have to get over their hangups about high rises". Deary m,e that's them told then. This development is IMO dire, just adds to the exisiting range of dire in this part of the city.
Sven
#13 Posted by Sven on 23 Apr 2015 at 17:22 PM
" The people of Glasgow will have to get over their hangups about high rises"

There is no need to 'high rise' is by that you mean very high density housing in a country that has the lowest populated density areas in Western Europe. There is no need for bad architecture and I believe that flatted developments contributes to Glasgow's bad health as there is no outdoor space to catch the sun and feel de-stressed.
Arthur Brown
#14 Posted by Arthur Brown on 24 Apr 2015 at 14:28 PM
Sorry but in my view this ain't a design statement it's simply a cheap boxy attempt to
create accommodation that make funders lots of cash. The planners have gone along with it and sold out, all to get another bit of their precious Clyde Walkway - shame on all those associated with this proposal!
Neil C
#15 Posted by Neil C on 29 Apr 2015 at 13:12 PM
#4 - Are you seriously suggesting that an Isle of Man-based company founded by two Irishmen represents an example of London capital dictating where Scots are going to live? Or that an independent Scotland would have received a better set of proposals for this Dandara-owned gap site? Or that in an independent Scotland, GCC would somehow grow a pair and start making the right decisions for Glasgow Harbour?

These plans are appalling in every respect, but trying to blame them on the Union is equally risible.
Neil C
#16 Posted by Neil C on 29 Apr 2015 at 13:13 PM
Further to last post, I meant to address comment #5, not #4. Possibly another example of Unionism's many failings, or more probably just my fat fingers hitting the wrong key!

Post your comments

 

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

 

Back to April 2015

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