'Backland' tower to lead St Enoch regeneration
February 27 2025
Haus Architects have shared a first glimpse of their towering proposals to redevelop a series of rundown buildings in the shadow of Glasgow's St Enoch Centre.
Still in use as a nightclub, the buildings at 90/96 Maxwell St and 40 Fox Street will be torn down and replaced by a hotel and apart-hotel operated by Radisson, following a report commissioned by Regent Property indicating that the B-listed facade of 90 Maxwell Street is corroded beyond repair.
Outlining the need for demolition the applicant wrote: "When we first consulted, we were hopeful of retaining the building façade and incorporating it as part of the new building design. Since March 2024, we have undertaken further extensive studies, employing a heritage engineer and stonemason. Their conclusion is that a treatment applied to the building in the 80s has corroded the stone making it unsalvageable."
The report, by Historic Environment Scotland stonemason Joseph Gangel, has been used to justify the decision to pursue a new build solution reflective of longer-term proposals to redevelop the St Enoch Centre.
In a consultation statement, Haus wrote: "Taking cues from the 90 Maxwell Street Facade, the proposal incorporates key massing datums in keeping with the height & scale of the existing buildings and wider urban block. The proposal also reflects the architectural language of the existing building through the articulation of the facades, offering a sense of depth and intrigue to the street."
Feedback on the current proposals can be submitted to the developers until 13 March.
Labelled as a backlands area the site is described as 'incredibly challenging'
The St Enoch area is likely to change beyond all recognition in the years ahead
The tower responds to a looming shift in scale for the surrounding area with a new generation of towers on the near horizon
|
13 Comments
#1 Posted by Interested Party on 27 Feb 2025 at 16:42 PM
I very much doubt that a HES stonemason would be producing reports on behalf of an architect. This does not happen as it would be massive conflict of interest. Why dont they just say it doesnt make their business model work?
#2 Posted by EM0 on 27 Feb 2025 at 17:21 PM
How boring, the old "too corroded to save" just be honest and say - "Too expensive and Glasgow is desperate so we will do what we like" we would probably respect that more! If the council approves this they deserve all they get when the city is a beyond relevance ugly blot on the map!
#3 Posted by Roddy_ on 27 Feb 2025 at 20:08 PM
Another bloated could-be-anywhere tower. Another fish tank made of graph paper. A sub-Salfordian fridge-on-end. And another piece of B-listed heritage gone. I try not to criticise the current authority too much for this, since it is the planning system itself that promotes this kind of garbage as acceptable.
I'm afraid that the city's tall buildings guidance will do nothing either to stem the mess that this corner of the city is turning into. The aerial image above shows the incoherent assemblage of shoe boxes - one getting in the way of the other. And that view along Howard St / Dunlop St is appalling - the scale needs to something way more slender and elegant.
The assertions of :
"Taking cues from the 90 Maxwell Street Facade, the proposal incorporates key massing datums in keeping with the height & scale of the existing buildings and wider urban block. The proposal also reflects the architectural language of the existing building through the articulation of the facades, offering a sense of depth and intrigue to the street."
is another Emperor's New Clothes description. In an age of gaslighting, this is not merely laughable, it is actually kind of pathetic.
I'm afraid that the city's tall buildings guidance will do nothing either to stem the mess that this corner of the city is turning into. The aerial image above shows the incoherent assemblage of shoe boxes - one getting in the way of the other. And that view along Howard St / Dunlop St is appalling - the scale needs to something way more slender and elegant.
The assertions of :
"Taking cues from the 90 Maxwell Street Facade, the proposal incorporates key massing datums in keeping with the height & scale of the existing buildings and wider urban block. The proposal also reflects the architectural language of the existing building through the articulation of the facades, offering a sense of depth and intrigue to the street."
is another Emperor's New Clothes description. In an age of gaslighting, this is not merely laughable, it is actually kind of pathetic.
#4 Posted by R on 28 Feb 2025 at 08:22 AM
Glasgow simply deserves better. This is just rock bottom, sub-standard from every possible viewpoint. Greedy, cynical, arrogant and aggressive.
#5 Posted by Georwell84 on 28 Feb 2025 at 08:38 AM
It was only 18th Feb that we were being told that the current building would be retained. Now they are telling us they have been investigating sine March 2024 and it cant be done. Sorry i dont believe them. https://www.urbanrealm.com/news/11365/Hotel_%26_serviced_apartments_to_revitalise_a_rundown_corner_of_St_Enoch.html
#6 Posted by Lovely on 28 Feb 2025 at 09:15 AM
It's absolutely baffling that Historic Environment Scotland would allow their name to be connected to a report supporting such a poor proposal. It's not just boring and ultra anodyne; it's a Sim-City-esque dystopian horror that butchers to death a listed building. Frankly, it's an insult to their supposed mission and is beyond embarrassing.
No doubt Glasgow Planning Heritage Team will fold themselves once again and pass it through with honours.
Easier to destroy a listed building in Glasgow than to do modest alterations and updates.
Totally pathetic and awful and urgent change is needed.
No doubt Glasgow Planning Heritage Team will fold themselves once again and pass it through with honours.
Easier to destroy a listed building in Glasgow than to do modest alterations and updates.
Totally pathetic and awful and urgent change is needed.
#7 Posted by TheFakeArchitect on 28 Feb 2025 at 09:37 AM
"The proposal also reflects the architectural language of the existing building through the articulation of the facades, offering a sense of depth and intrigue to the street."
Where about..?
Where about..?
#8 Posted by gay gordon on 28 Feb 2025 at 15:11 PM
Fee driven 'architecture'
You get what they pay for.
You get what they pay for.
#9 Posted by Roddy_ on 3 Mar 2025 at 14:17 PM
Per the 3rd image.
It should also be noted that the St Enoch masterplan opens up a vista to this development from Argyle Street. There are no images of the elevation that will be facing up this new street either here or on the consultation website. Will it be designed 'in the round' as guidance informs or will we get the blank facing concrete box of The Clayton that reads as some kind of power station as you look down Union Street?
https://www.google.com/maps/@55.8596695,-4.2568774,3a,75y,173.07h,88.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1simH_7i8BIFdD9n-eJuj5gw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D1.5987936096814934%26panoid%3DimH_7i8BIFdD9n-eJuj5gw%26yaw%3D173.06787045799445!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw%3D%3D
Note also how the consultation boards assiduously avoid any kind of site analysis leading to a concept leading to a buiilding. Instead we get a run down of what may or may not be in the pipeline (planning) and then presented with what looks like a fait accomli. No real design narrative and this contrived piece of gaslighting that I've noted above. One wonders just what discussions have been had with City Design that allows such awful designs to be brought forward.
It should also be noted that the St Enoch masterplan opens up a vista to this development from Argyle Street. There are no images of the elevation that will be facing up this new street either here or on the consultation website. Will it be designed 'in the round' as guidance informs or will we get the blank facing concrete box of The Clayton that reads as some kind of power station as you look down Union Street?
https://www.google.com/maps/@55.8596695,-4.2568774,3a,75y,173.07h,88.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1simH_7i8BIFdD9n-eJuj5gw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D1.5987936096814934%26panoid%3DimH_7i8BIFdD9n-eJuj5gw%26yaw%3D173.06787045799445!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw%3D%3D
Note also how the consultation boards assiduously avoid any kind of site analysis leading to a concept leading to a buiilding. Instead we get a run down of what may or may not be in the pipeline (planning) and then presented with what looks like a fait accomli. No real design narrative and this contrived piece of gaslighting that I've noted above. One wonders just what discussions have been had with City Design that allows such awful designs to be brought forward.
#10 Posted by Boss on 3 Mar 2025 at 22:28 PM
How dull can a building be? This dull.
If you are going to knock down a historic building. At least have the decency to design something high quality. Have Haus done Hoos
If you are going to knock down a historic building. At least have the decency to design something high quality. Have Haus done Hoos
#11 Posted by Boss on 3 Mar 2025 at 22:29 PM
*have Haus done a Hoko and replaced their architects with technicians? My granny could design this better.
#12 Posted by Bank of Scotland, Queen Street on 4 Mar 2025 at 09:06 AM
Can we have our corner back, please?
#13 Posted by Neighbour on 5 Mar 2025 at 16:00 PM
The comments posted here so far are so misinformed they make me laugh. I attended the consultation drop in as I'm sure none of the rest of you did. There you could find the very stonemason mentioned and the one which you all question had anything to do with the commissioned report.
The reality is that this B-listed buildings facade is beyond repair due to a treatment applied decades ago which has made the stone crumble and rot from the inside. This is why it cannot be saved. So I ask all of you would you rather this corner of Glasgow be left to rot with the current building remaining in situ? (As a side note parts of this building were falling to the street a few years back and the area cordoned off)
I live right next to the building in question. I would much prefer that life be brought back to the area in the form of a new development than to sit staring at a beyond repair B-listed building that is impossible to fix. With regards the new design, it is a matter of opinion. Architecture is subjective. The new proposal probably isn't as pretty to look at as a building built in the 19th century. But I'd much rather it than architects try to re-create and fake an old looking building. Times and styles move on, time you all did too.
The reality is that this B-listed buildings facade is beyond repair due to a treatment applied decades ago which has made the stone crumble and rot from the inside. This is why it cannot be saved. So I ask all of you would you rather this corner of Glasgow be left to rot with the current building remaining in situ? (As a side note parts of this building were falling to the street a few years back and the area cordoned off)
I live right next to the building in question. I would much prefer that life be brought back to the area in the form of a new development than to sit staring at a beyond repair B-listed building that is impossible to fix. With regards the new design, it is a matter of opinion. Architecture is subjective. The new proposal probably isn't as pretty to look at as a building built in the 19th century. But I'd much rather it than architects try to re-create and fake an old looking building. Times and styles move on, time you all did too.
Post your comments
Read next: 21 projects join RIAS Awards 2025 lineup
Read previous: Hypostyle draw up clachan-style housing for booming Dunbeg
