Climate emergency prompts a reappraisal of Finnieston flats
February 2 2023
Redevco is soliciting views on its aspirations to deliver a build-to-rent apartment scheme in Finnieston, Glasgow, after throwing out approved plans which relied on a gas-powered combined heat and power plant.
The real estate investment group has invited Cooper Cromar to draft alternative plans for 11 Minerva Street, which already has planning consent for 195 flats, after finding that whole-life carbon emissions exceeded its targets.
Explaining the need to go back to the drawing board Redevco wrote: "This approved scheme on the site was designed in 2019; however, in the intervening period of time there have been updates to Building Regulations, particularly in relation to energy. This means that the approved design must change to accommodate those new requirements.
"Redevco are revisiting the existing planning permission for the site to remove elements of the scheme which are not sustainable and inconsistent with their Mission 2040 policy, which requires that all of their property and developments achieve Net Zero Carbon by 2040."
The new consultant team emphasise sustainability in their approach, which will instead rely on a heat recovery system to warm homes. This in turn necessitates a full review of all flats, communal and amenity areas to maximise performance.
A public exhibition of the new plans is to be held in The Moxy Hotel, 140 Finnieston Street, between 14:00 and 19:00 on 28 February.
1. The moon landing wasn't faked.
2. Elvis is dead.
3. Chemtrails aren't a thing.
4. ET isn't a true story.
5. Sitting in your pants reading Twitter posts from @FlatWorld69 doesn't count as research.
Many folk including myself were incredulous that such a thoughtful looking scheme might actually see the light of day - and so it seems our scepticism has been borne out.
Cooper Cromer have a high bar to clear if it is to be anything like as good though the wording, 'remove elements of the scheme which are not sustainable and inconsistent' does sound ominous.
How urgently serious climate change actually is or isn't becomes academic when you consider that the planet will quickly die anyway from resource depletion, pollution, land destruction and species die offs etc in any case if we stick to the current models of living.
If you are serious about doing something about these issues then you need to study the money system properly.
After over 40 years of doing nothing or less than nothing then all this sudden panicking, ruminating, pointless virtue signalling (or denying things for that matter) and expending ever more resources to add extra complex machines everywhere to try compensate for this profligacy is madness.
You’re trying to preserve a model that is already more dead than Elvis by adding bells and whistles everywhere. That is not real change.
Planet destruction is a built in feature of the debt based money system we operate under. There is no off switch so we need a new system really quite soon or at least to stop moaning all the time and accept what you’re part of.
Everything else is just a very complicated, public funded icing sugar to soften the bitter hard pill that we've only got one planet and we are going down a very dark road with it.
Deck chairs/Titanic etc and so on ad infinitum....
Globally construction influence 40% of CO2 emissions (29% in building use and 11% in constructing buildings). The debate has long moved on from if we need to change, to how we achieve decarbonisation.
Massive change of thinking needed.
No wonder there are trolls and deniers at this level of debate, although personally I don't think the guy peaceably questioning the current narrative constitutes trolling.
Science must have debate after all or it is just dogma...
We can debate climate (well some can at least) but this design change is just making an excuse for a negative redesign that has nothing to do with the environment and a lot to do with extra profits.
Development costs be that material inflation, increased borrowing rates alongside a cooling housing market make achieving the margin envisaged when the scheme was designed in 2019.
Alongside a clear and rationale discussion/debate on climate we also need to be able to discuss the economics of private development that accepts those taking financial risks are entitled to make financial gain without being demonised for doing so.
However, we are talking about environmental issues being used as a smokescreen here to make a case for a worse design.
This is not a good way to increase people's faith in the genuine need behind the issue. See comment #1.
The dishonesty may be extra profitable but very unhelpful and somewhat immoral in this debate.
PS- If these guys can't make it stack up in an honest manner then let someone else have a go and simply sell the site, that's how healthy versions of capitalism work after all....