Is 'Dandara' the Gaelic for dull and unimaginative?

is ‘Dandara’ not Gaelic for someone who unimaginatively moans online?

can you actually get magnolia coloured bricks?

Be some view from that sky deck or whatever its called anyway. Mind you the initial proposal for the tower on the other side of bridge looked even taller

Looks pretty good to me. Every major city that is booming in the uk is headed in this direction to increase city centre population. Time for Glasgow to start punching its weight..

Good to see some height, but please can we see some nicer material on the main tower. Still weep every time I pass the new jobby towers at Tradeston.
And what about some balconies to break up the monotony?

does glasgow really need towers at this height ?

#7 Yes it does. Because Glasgow is not a museum city and it would benefit from establishing a modern skyline.

@8 incorrect, its not a mutually exclusive relationship. Glasgow can reject highrise and still be a modern city.

#9 but why would Glasgow want to reject high rises?

#9 The current skyline (with the exception of the West End) is dominated by tower blocks and an underwhelming collection of mid rise office blocks all of similar height.

Adding towers with a bit of height would be transformative.

I think we need some taller buildings in Glasgow, in fact I wouldn't mind if this one was a little taller.

Interesting terminology in the thread, I think in Scotland we have pretty negative connotations with "high-rises" from some of the 60's buildings, whereas we've never really had any "skyscrapers". Ok this one technically is probably not tall enough to be a skyscraper anyway, so Glasgow's Chrysler building still awaits. Hopefully one day!

Once again, I must question the assertions in this thread that Glasgow 'needs some height', none of which are substantiated by any urban arguments and seem to be based entirely in opinion.

Glasgow's occupancy is tens of thousands below its housing provision - look at greater Glasgow and the occupancy deficit rockets into the hundreds of thousands. The problems we've seen in the past few years around student housing shortages etc. are more a product of unsustainable rent increases than an actual lack of bedspaces. How will building two whacking great towers with 'premium' (read, expensive) apartments next to a motorway fix that problem?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing the arguments from people like town planner - whom I've seen champion height a few times on UR without explaining why.

#13 That is simply incorrect. Housing provision in both Glasgow and Greater Glasgow is now desperately required. It sounds like you are referring to a situation felt back in the 89’s and early 90’s. Since the transfer of the housing stock and the vastly improved economic situation in Glasgow and the West, housing is now desperately required, there is no “spare occupancy” that’s for sure. Build them up!

#13 - I have given reasons in other threads but perhaps you didn't see them.

Here's one, how about to slow the massive rate of urban sprawl across the central belt to benefit nature and climate? There are others, but that's a biggie.

I'll give just one more, which is very much an "opinion". I like taller buildings. I like what they look like. So that is a subjective aesthetic thing, others, perhaps including you, don't, which is of course fair enough. I may be wrong, but I get the sense that this underpins a lot of people's views on the issue of height in these threads, rather more than "urban arguments".

Out of interest, would you be supportive of a skyscraper in any location in Glasgow under any circumstance?

#15 Thanks for getting back to me! And apologies in advance, got carried away in my response.

I take your point about urban sprawl, I'm no fan of the 500 Cala home developments at motorway junctions either. For the people who want to live in suburban and rural areas, I believe there should be much greater provision of mid-density (ie 4-5 storey) terraced housing stock agglomerated around common greens etc. rather than the detached two-storey-in-a-massive-garden houses that we've all come to desire. Also worth noting that inner city housing isn't really catering to those people - so building one, does not necessarily eliminate the need for the other.

Without being contrarian - I actually don't mind height! I've worked on a number of 20 and 30+ storey developments (albeit in London), and haven't found them particularly distasteful. What I find objectionable is developments like Anderson Quay, where transit infrastructure, local amenity, lack of nearby greenery, and the the context (overlooking a motorway) aren't conducive to it being a nice place to live! Imagine if you will, living in an apartment on the east of this proposal: you look over at the motorway through your window which is fixed shut as a planning condition to control noise and air quality. Thinking you want some fresh air you go downstairs and leave the block immediately onto a choked four-lane dual carriageway. The token 'green amenity space' included in the development is rammed because you're sharing it with over a thousand other households so you walk half an hour to Kelvingrove, the next closest park. On your way home you stop off at the shops and pick up a weekly shop, because there isn't a supermarket near your house, before remembering that the public transit links to your house are poor enough that you might as well walk home carrying your heavy bags.

On the question of a Glasgow skyscraper; in principle I don't object. I just think the sites where height is being proposed, and the 8-10 per core 15 storey 'towers', are less than ideal. For example, The north end of byres road is woefully under-densified given its provision, likewise the Trongate junction could do with a 4-6 per core 30 storey 'Tall Slender Elegant Object' (as Edinburgh planning is want to call them). If the skyscraper that's being proposed as part of the Fosters+Partners redevelopment of Buchanan galleries were moved to the very top of Buchanan street, the arguments about making a landmark building would ring true. I wouldn't even be averse to some height around KG or Glasgow Green.

Of course the city centre needs more population but why not build on mid rise gap sites or do conversions of empty and derelict buildings nearer the centre before you try to become a poor man's Hong Kong?

#16 Ok thanks for clarifying some points, interesting to hear you think some locations are appropriate.
Currently what seems to happen, almost as a norm, is stories get chopped off before approval, for just about any development, and in just about any location in Glasgow! Just most recently, see "hair-cut" on Sauchiehall Street. (I don't actually mind the revision to that)

Re: your take on it "not being nice" next to a motorway, ok, but you will concede that is a subjective opinion? Sure you may not want to live there, but some people might. Re: air pollution, let's not forget the transition to electric with ScotGov targeting to phase out petrol/diesel cars and vans by 2030. Assuming there was decent noise insulation (and EV are quieter anyway) the views over the motorway and of the Glasgow skyline at night could be fantastic if that's your bag. And the point is, if that is your bag it's not currently catered for in the market place. Just a reminder, currently we don't really have any skyscrapers at all in Glasgow or indeed anywhere in Scotland! Anyway, let's hope for a 'Tall Slender Elegant Object' sometime soon! I'd take that. Cheers

Mean, dull and generic.
Salford, Croyden, Leeds ... (insert provincial variant).
When we look back in 20 years, these towers will be a perfect reflection of the austerity architecture pervading the city .

Wait a minute, haven’t we done all this before? A few short decades ago Glasgow had the tallest residential towers and more residential towers generally than any other city in Western Europe. Mostly now unsustainably torn down for right or wrong. So why again create heavy, unnecessary, dystopian, density-spikes in a city that is still full of unbuilt gap sites? If you like the Matrix so much go online and find it there. This is just unhuman.

Much needed gutsy filler -- height is needed there to minimise the impact of the Kingston Bridge / M8. Just a case that more would have been better.

All that is needed is that decades old gap sites on the other side of the M8 need filled at the double.

Land-banking has held the city centre back for decades -- at least this shows progress.

Landscape the M8 undercroft and we really would be cooking with gas.

I think you also have to wonder about air quality in this location . There will be a column of noxious gases and particulates rising and dispersing from the motorway corridor. Not -in my submission- an ideal location for those with any respiratory conditions.

We hear talk of the the importance of healthy placemaking. One wonders what the health implications are for living so close to a 10-lane motorway?

I'm sure it has been mentioned before -- the M8 emissions are a lot less now than they were 30 years ago.

Taking lead out of petrol and sulphur out of diesel have been transformational at a societal level -- the reduction in violence would be a good place to start.

Then you have the growing move towards electrified powertrains and BEVs -- no local powertrain emissions -- so that will be another reason for not building in this area retired with all the other scare stories and old wives tales.

Hopefully the new houses are well ventilated to stop the growth of mould -- one issue to watch as we move to a building spec that needs mechanical ventilation / will that mean that the electricity can't be cut off?.

Surely someone can come up with a better description of the future than the intellectually bankrupt / logically flawed "passiv hoose".

#23 fiddlesticks!
I find myself in agreement with you on the Emporers new Passivhaus!