If this was a gap site I would say this is a reasonable effort at creating new housing within a tenemental context. However the loss of the B listed church on this site is appauling. What is the point of listing buildings if it doesn't protect them from neglect and demoliton?

The loss of the church would be yet another piece of heritage fabric lost forever. I wonder if this is now a fait accomli?
As for the design, one suspects that the architects know that the corner element where the set-back storey is, is really jarring and incongruent but are forced to go with a design maximising floor area. It is clear that this needs development IF it is to go ahead. One just hopes that our betters in City Design think the same way.

Fully agree with the above comments. So sad if the city allows the church be demolished!

I like this design, but it's still not justified.

This is how you do it.
https://stallanbrand.com/projects/hillhead-baptist-church/

Looks good. The existing building isn't particularly interesting aesthetically and won't be any great loss.

@#5

I wonder if you know much about heritage and its loss in this city. Your contribution seems to sort of say that you don't which is a bit of a shame. Understanding this context helps one to appreciate the rarity and value of this kind of building.

Sorry to break it to you but the framework by which we judge buildings and their aesthetic qualities (also rarity, setting and general importance) disagrees with you and assigns a B listing.

Category B
Buildings of special architectural or historic interest which are major examples of a particular period, style or building type.

So sorry again to disagree, but yes this would be a loss on this basis.

Can I suggest 'The Classical Language of Architecture' by John Summerston as a rip-roaring entree into the world of classicism. Take you a half a day to read and will sharpen the dullest of wits in relation to good classical aesthetics. :)

@#6
Edit -
*Summerson
Been a while since I've read it . I shall re-read immediately...

@#6

This is a fair point, but who bares the responsibility of retaining these heritage buildings? and will they do anything about them?

As sad as it might be, what is the benefit to the city of buildings being left to crumble and fall into disrepair because no one is willing to put any money into them?

do you think a disused building sitting purposeless is more important than one which, may not be as pretty, but serves the people who live there? No doubt that it would be better for the existing building to be repurposed for a number of reasons but if people arent willing to do so, then why leave it to sit and do nothing?

@#8
Last paragraph is interesting in that it introduces a manufactured thesis (sorry) : that the site should serve the people who live there. Well, no one lives there at the moment. The supposition is that if someone gets to live there (eventually), that it will be a good thing and that is the supposition, primarily -but not exclusively- of the developer. The corrollary being that we somehow have to accept the developers fait accompli that the thing is not saveable. The truth is that it is saveable, its just that the developer is not willing to accept a cut in their profits -or, as they claim, the redevelopment of the church even as a facade is not viable. Given that the location is in one of the areas of high demand in Glasgow, I don't find that credible. If this can't be saved in that location, then other at-risk heritage in less well-off areas are truly doomed.
To answer the first point second , it is clearly the owners that BEAR the primary responsibility of looking after heritage. Why have they not protected the shell of the building with a temporary roof structure or at the minimum boarded over the windows? The answer is the same in every case of this kind and you don't need to be an expert to know what's going on here.
Just because they cannot see the tangible and intangible values of the listing, does not mean that we have to accept that this is a lost cause. And the Council and Scottish Government need to do better; the council with enforcement and the Government with better protective legislation and preferential VAT- (alas still in the gift of Westminster). The fact that the current local admin is only just pursuing the VAT issue is astonishing given that heritage bodies have been calling for this for decades.

Interesting to see how the listed building process can be "managed" if you have the time and the energy.

Here we have a B listed building of some local and national repute being demolished to aid a developer with a housebuilding project in a prime residential area with a huge stock of expensive housing units readily available.

Compare and contrast with the situation on Balmore Road where a building of little or no architectural merit is hastily given a C listing to stop a housing development in an area of limited modern housing stock which is crying out for housing investment.

Strange world we live in -- we sit idlily by as our significant past is destroyed level by level while we howl at the moon when someone does something different that goes against the stasis that many want to see in blue collar neighbourhoods.

Strange world indeed.

I think it may only be you howling at the moon FBOT :)

OMG -- I wonder if horse tranquilisers are easier to find on Balmore Road?

Listed buildings vs Glesga -- strange goings on.

Baptist Church site history -- follow the money / understand the history.

Tough gig / awkward listed building -- you need a special kind of fortitude to take on a job like this.

A brass neck you couldn't mark with a blowtorch will help.

An absolute farce if this is to be allowed over the quite brilliant Stallan-Brand proposal to work with the existing building.
This scheme still cant get that corner detail to work and tweaking the colour of the main facade only represents a negligible improvement, albeit the change to grey standing seam for the roof is actually worse!

The corpulent tourist actually has a good point here about the classist, bigoted and downright odd policy direction in Glasgow now, especially concerning listed buildings and transport.

This is also just an odious, overbearing and overcooked offer as well plus to top it off those peculiar set back cube lantern things that get put on every corner now simply don't work as a feature.