Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Cookies
 

Adam Architecture penned Kelvinside flats plan resubmitted

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

May 20 2015

Adam Architecture penned Kelvinside flats plan resubmitted
New City Vision have dusted off proposals dating back to 2012 to build 90 homes at Clouston Street, Kelvinside, by submitting a fresh planning application - after the original was thrown out for lacking key documentation.

Despite the near three year hiatus the scheme as proposed remains largely unchanged from its previous incarnation, save for the addition of two new homes to Kelbourne Street and an increase in height of flatted accommodation on Sanda Street from four to five storeys.

Designed by Adam Architecture the scheme would supplant former playing fields, since turned into a community wild space, with traditionally styled new build homes intended to be in keeping with the surrounding conservation area.

In their design statement Adam Architecture said: “A combination of strong, simple vernacular forms, with more ornate corner and gateway buildings, are composed in a traditional urban block form, giving each street a slightly different character.”

Facades will be finished in a mixture of natural and reconstituted stone, harling and stucco with feature copper roof turrets.

A line of protected lime trees on Clouston Street will be felled and replaced by 'uniformly spaced' alternatives
A line of protected lime trees on Clouston Street will be felled and replaced by 'uniformly spaced' alternatives
It remains to be seen whether its second time lucky for the scheme
It remains to be seen whether its second time lucky for the scheme

19 Comments

Andy Pandy
#1 Posted by Andy Pandy on 20 May 2015 at 18:53 PM
Please take the time to object to this if you can. Unless of course you like your cheap neo-classical architects flown in from London to design your 'community open space' with a kind of Colditz-esque double courtyard of watch towers round it. It would also be interesting to hear from any of the 17 other architects who squandered their time submitting proposals for this council led scheme back in 2008 as it seems almost impossible that any of them could be any worse than this. Hopefully this design is completely irrelevant as you can't take away publicly owned facilities like this without like for like recompense so should be all but impossible for it to obtain permission, even if it was a good design.
Big Chantelle
#2 Posted by Big Chantelle on 20 May 2015 at 20:52 PM
A perfectly executed development. High regard in the arts for classical antiquity, as setting standards for taste which the lefty concrete modernist brigade should seek to emulate. This invokes an idea of a place with emphasis on symmetry, proportion, geometry and the regularity of parts as they are demonstrated in the architecture of Classical antiquity and in particular, the architecture of Ancient Rome. In 100 years Glasgow will be identifying with this as a surviving architectural achievement.
Chris
#3 Posted by Chris on 20 May 2015 at 22:11 PM
It's very badly proportioned and value engineered. Earlier proposals were sympathetic terraces typical of the West End. There are various reconstructions that are accurate, but this is just PoMo, certainly not an architectural achievement.
SJF
#4 Posted by SJF on 20 May 2015 at 23:33 PM
This may not be a modernists cup of tea, it may be "PoMo" or "Colditz-esque", it may not even last 100 years but atleast it makes some sort of effort to blend into its surroundings, a concept that seems to have been lost.

What is the obsession of the vast majority of current architects to design 'signature' or 'landmark' buildings that push the boundaries of design and modern living. If you truly believe in your concept of modern brilliance; why not add it to the shinning modernist utopia's of Townhead, Sighthill, Robroyston, Drumchapel or Castlemilk.

Surely the concept of a adding a building that shouts "LOOK AT ME!!!!!" is against the principles of a 'Conservation Area'.
Ollie
#5 Posted by Ollie on 21 May 2015 at 13:03 PM
How can anyone think this is good? This scheme will use cheap materials and poor detailling. No doubt the scale of the buildings and the proportions of the windows will be wrong too. The council need to have another think about this one please for all our sakes...
Walt Disney
#6 Posted by Walt Disney on 21 May 2015 at 13:06 PM
A bit of contextual design OMG the horror! Absolutely nothing wrong with this proposal.
Big Chantelle
#7 Posted by Big Chantelle on 21 May 2015 at 13:11 PM
Post #2 is not me. Although I appreciate that my presence has inspired copycats. Urban Realm -- do you condone people imitating established commentators?
Liam
#8 Posted by Liam on 21 May 2015 at 13:15 PM
BC / Albert Speer?
up-up-and-away
#9 Posted by up-up-and-away on 21 May 2015 at 13:16 PM
fear big channy is being conned by this dangling in front of his eyes ' feature copper roof turrets'
which from the ground know one will know they are GRP.....and wait for the rest of the material review....
Ollie
#10 Posted by Ollie on 21 May 2015 at 13:48 PM
I feel sorry for the established 'protected lime trees' that will be cut down for this 1st year student style design.
Scarpa's Set Square
#11 Posted by Scarpa's Set Square on 21 May 2015 at 13:54 PM
@ SJF - blend into its surroundings? Aye, I was forgetting about the pure hunners of stucco and harling tenements in Glasgow.

As for the rest of it...dearie me. Is this not the kind of thing that Stalin used to like?
Thomas Hamilton
#12 Posted by Thomas Hamilton on 21 May 2015 at 13:57 PM
I've nothing against classical Architecture per se, but this seems overly elaborate and has little to do with the context, there are plenty of good examples of classically styled traditional tenements around this site.
Magnus
#13 Posted by Magnus on 21 May 2015 at 14:07 PM
If anyone has actually looked through the planning drawings they will see how poor this design is.
The proportions may seem OK in the 3D images, but the scale is catastrophically wrong. The window details match nothing in the area. Who has ever seen a square corner bay window like that?! The reconstituted stone and render will look cartoon like and again, won't match the area.

This is not a contextual development. Not for Glasgow at least. It might look a bit like an POMO Italian township, but nothing like the beautiful bay windowed tenements that make glasgow great.

All this will do is build over a well used and well loved green space, and ruin a beautifully formed street. This is anything but a classic. Please object if you have any sense, or even eyes.
modernish
#14 Posted by modernish on 21 May 2015 at 14:35 PM
@#7 - 'established commentators'...nice one!
Chris
#15 Posted by Chris on 21 May 2015 at 15:05 PM
There are already near-perfect reconstructions of tenements in the West End, you could walk past them without even realising how new they are. I'd prefer something like that rather than this half-baked throwback from the 80s.
build me up
#16 Posted by build me up on 21 May 2015 at 17:43 PM
Why is there one housing project squeezed inside another one here?.. site plan looks like overkill to me.. apart from the problems of building on a community claimed piece of land - this looks like it could be appealed on grounds of over development.
Partick Bateman
#17 Posted by Partick Bateman on 22 May 2015 at 16:57 PM
This is a perfect gap site ideal for residential use.

Never mind the NIMBYs who suddenly decided to scatter wildflower seeds onto a piece of waste ground they'd never used before and call it a "meadow" when they got wind of this development.

However, this is a poor design.
visitor
#18 Posted by visitor on 25 May 2015 at 05:10 AM
playing fields become community wild space.
community wild space becomes housing.
protected trees become firewood. The alternative trees will start life in a 5 storey corridor, and likely never breach 20ft tall in the next 25 years, if they survive.
Andy Pandy
#19 Posted by Andy Pandy on 27 May 2015 at 21:49 PM
Let's hope that Patrick Bateman's local, publicly owned, green space isn't earmarked for rapacious crappy development so he doesn't have to become yet another NIMBY as he so un-eloquently puts it.

Post your comments

 

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

 

Back to May 2015

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