I should have gone with my original instinct - this flew threw the committee. They have played the game well and won. No doubt corks will have been popped today.

It is, however, a decision comparable to the decision to build a multi-storey carpark next to Scotland St School.It almost feels like a decision from the 1960's or 70's when the city was eating itself and the authorities just couldn't see over the horizon and the damage it was doing to itself. In other words, the putative city of Design and Architecture is really nothing but the Emperor's New Clothes. It is dead. I don't often agree with Alan Dunlop - but he is right in this instance.

To have refused an earlier, smaller design on the basis that it was mis-scaled and to then consent a larger, bulkier scheme is confusing only to those that don't understand the shambolic way that planning committees operate. Some of the smallest and most insignificant schemes are refused on the basis of the height of a window here or, metal windows there. A door panel not-in-keeping or the wrong kind of roof material. Here we have, the most important built artefact in the city - arguably Scotland- with very serious and well-demonstrated concerns and there is a clamour to consent. The mind boggles.

It will certainly be interesting to see if Scottish Ministers are brave enough to call this in given the national and international issues at play and so this might not be the end of the story.

I should also have said that to not have had a hearing on such an important decision is astonishing. You should see the kind of things in the past that have had hearings and they are nothing in comparison to the weight and importance of this.

So no representations from HES (though they are not compelled to appear) or indeed the Art School. Some councillors were clear that they did not have enough information to make a decision and others thought there was plenty. This seems like a shaky foundation upon which to make a decision, but that folks is local democracy in action. This is how it is done.

If anything positive comes from this debacle, it is the focus, the drawing back of the curtain of the planning system and planning committee system that we have and the often inexplicable decisions that are made on our behalf.

The only sensible decision. I'm sure everyone would like listed buildings to have an entirely sympathetic setting. However, (a) it's not healthy for the city centre to have a huge gap site sitting for years (b) the "Jacks" building that sat there previously was hardly in keeping (c) most importantly, the School of Art is gone and it looks increasingly unlikely that a pastiche replacement will ever be built.

It's really simple mate, it's called corruption. I always enjoy your knowledgeable input Roddy, but I suspect you are deluded by the system you believe in. As to the Scottish government calling it in? Youre 'aving a larf, ain'tcha?
But please allow me to repeat myself for the point of clarity regarding your conclusion:
''If anything positive comes from this debacle, it is the focus, the drawing back of the curtain of the planning system and planning committee system that we have and the often inexplicable decisions that are made on our behalf.''
It is called corruption. There, that's sorted.

@#4
No, sorry, I don't believe it to be so and there isn't a scrap to evidence to the contrary. Just because you don't like the decision (I don't) doesn't mean you resort to unfounded accusations of corruption. No. What I do think is that the Planning System and the Planning Applications Committee are not fit for purpose. The former promotes a discretionary system where pretty much anything goes ; a system designed to avoid the very worst , but does not, in fact, promote the very best. The latter you could call democracy in action, except to say that far too much of the decision making (which is meant to follow 'material considerations') is actually based on the predelictions of the elected members. We need elected members that understand architecture, understand conservation, understand listing, understand setting, understand designed landscapes, and not just the dollar value attached to a project.
Normally the PAC are dealing with pretty low-grade stuff (one wonders why the half of it can't be dealt with by the delegated powers of officers) where we see members arguing the toss over the position of a kitchen extension window or door. This scheme has really caught the members in the headlights - almost too big a deal to contend with. The easiest thing is to consent because a refusal requires explanation and a proper one if the applicant subsequently appeals. It truly is a revelation to watch the PAC online webcasts, I thoroughly recommend watching for all that are interested in the process - you will be astonished- and not in a good way.
'Deluded by the system I believe in' - I'm not really sure what that means, but no I'm not. And as for ministers calling in / not calling in the scheme - we shall see. There are national issues at play here in just the same way there were national issues at play over the flatted scheme at Candleriggs which was called in over 'agent of change'. The game is not quite up and there might be a surprise along the way.

Roddy, just by way of discussion, here are my thoughts on this (although I suspect that Urban Realm will have been here many times before and so nothing is new).
It would appear that you assume, I think, from what I read, that here in Glasgow or Scotland, there are no phonecalls ever made by the movers and shakers, or other forms of meetings behind the front of house scenes of an apparently 'democratic' planning application/procedure. And yet, as this (behind the scenes) is how the world governs itself, why would Tamany Hall be any different?
The fish, which is wholly rotten, rots from the head down (I'll not bore the readers with a list yet as its not appropriate) and that the political culture of the Scottish Government will logically pervade all stratas of government and its attendant lickspittle quangos. They are all answerable to no-one. This is proven (again no list of cases to be provided yet). I believe this government and all its branches long departed from the vine of government.
Regarding PACs, I have personally fallen foul of their appalling ways and means and so I know they are a joke. Yes, satire is the truth.
By deluded, i meant that i think you believe in the system, whereas I tend to think it to be a front, or a sop to the hoi polloi.
Yes, I shall watch this space and see if anything happens and if you are right then I will have no problem acknowleging this.
Last point, I really do think you are going against the grain of the world we live in nowadays, when you make this statement albeit well-meaning:
''We need elected members that understand architecture, understand conservation, understand listing, understand setting, understand designed landscapes, and not just the dollar value attached to a project."
Well that just aint gonna happen ever. Developers are only interested in the bottom line (and quite rightly so - that's their job, answerable only to their shareholders). And the only bulwark against this straight-up simple greed is and always has been the planning system. Well, it appears that they too, like any other commodity can be bought and sold.
Welcome to Chicago.

@6
So you simultaneously believe that the system is both 'corrupt' and that it is a 'bulwark' against greed. This seems a lot like cognitive dissonance and not something that can be responded to.

You make an imperative statement that, 'Developers are only interested in the bottom line'. This is plainly and clearly not true, we have had developer-architects and architect-developers whose rationale was both to make a profit but bring to bear a sensitive and context responsive architecture.Their contributions to the city have been game-changing, albeit that many are actually better at design than business. It is possible to walk and chew gum.

I think I have qualified my views on PACs and the planning system pretty clearly. There is no delusion,just a view based on about 30-odd years of paying attention to this kind of stuff. If you have evidence rather than just assertions of corruption, I bet the forum here would love to hear it.

Of course, direct proof (wire-tapping is illegal) unlike circumstancial evidence is unavailable to the mortal man (“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matt. 7:15–20.)). So its a bit like trying to prove the existence of God. Do you really believe that behind the scenes ultimatums, dictats, deals, agreements in good faith are 'on the record' between the head honcho of department Glasgow and the head honcho of Acme Inc. No, of course not. They never will be any trail. And yes, bulwarks can be corrupted, ask those who sailed on the Titanic.
Regarding architects as developers and vice versa, who among them has had the funds of a 356 student bedroom available? And so it is maybe a question of scale here. However I am more than happy to qualify my statement to read 'with a few exceptions'.
To finish here, obviously we agree to differ, but on my reading of the bigger picture, the government via the proxy of a planning department will now get to bury the bodies of all involved in the GSA fires, so why on earth would they not approve this behemoth?
Nothing to see here, move along now. Good night and good luck.

Beyond parody all the bile and negativity aimed at this development.

Where were all the gum bumpers and the style police when the Reid building was going through planning?

Absolute abomination of a development -- probably out on its own as the worst design in post war Glasgow. Just what were they thinking about -- after the debacle of the doubler decker bridge over Renfrew Street anything goes?

As for the Sauchiehall Street dimension -- what views were there of the CRM building? Pitt Street had something but Douglas Street had a blank gable end and little else.

This development could be better but beggars can't be choosers and we desperately need the ABC site returned to useful productive activity.

Seven years a failure -- at least this is progress of a sort while behind it all there remains is heartbreak.

Hopefully big change comes in 2026.

- Useful filler.

Loving the idea in the comments that corruption only exists if evidence is somehow caught, proven and published.

If this were true there would be no corruption.

Cloud cuckoo land stuff but admirably naive and optimistic in its in weird way.

Also loving the conniption fit caused by a boring and greedy building being built next to the husk of a beautiful building twice destroyed by culpable fires.

Another incongruous and not fit for purpose building was built across from this same building's front facade while it was still surviving and was probably supported by the same people who are bleating like mad about this back side development.

Its all very interesting on a socio-anthropological level.

@#11

'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'*

*Hitchens Razor

Does anything actually provably exist or perhaps we are all living in Elon Musk-esque simulation?

To be able to debate healthily and dynamically you need to have a certain amount of laissez-faire acceptance of likely realities.

Otherwise you just end up spending forever discussing the parameters of the debate rather than actually debating.

I'd be careful about allegations of corruption just because a decision doesn't go your way. Amongst councillors perhaps, but rare amongst planners because it usually involves collective decision making.
I worked as a planner in Edinburgh fifty years ago and it was rife then. One development I recommended for refusal was mysteriously passed. It happens, but this time I decided to check and discovered my report had been altered without my knowledge or agreement. Further inquiry revealed that the city planning officer had personally intervened even leaving a letter on file thanking the developer for an extensive lunch a few days before the committee met. When I asked his secretary if that was usual she said "No, but the developer here was his golfing partner". I quit a few weeks later.
The proposal here is an urban design failure due to the excessive height of the street facade as well as the mundane quality of the architecture. I'm also puzzled by the sunlight angles shown in the illustrations which not only vary but also suggest a sun that is nearly vertically overhead. Again fifty years ago we used to catalogue all the scams architects got up to in submitting applications eg using a very faint line to show the lift motor room or shrinking the size of the car spaces in the parking area to get the requisite number. Plus ca change....

@#14
It does rather sound like you are living in an 'Elon Musk-esque simulation'.

You say:
'To be able to debate healthily and dynamically you need to have a certain amount of laissez-faire acceptance of likely realities'

When, in fact,to debate healthily precisely the opposite is true.

Maybe.

You're not in the debate any more anyway because you're debating the parameters endlessly instead of the main point of the debate.

The issue is that what may be very true for you may not actually be true at all and it can be very difficult to tell the difference if you are truly questioning things in an investigative way.

Think of Gallileo and his troubles with the 'truth' if you're struggling with the Musk example.

Until you realise this and chill out a bit you are stuck at a schoolboy level of boring technocratic debate.

Try to keep and open mind and Happy Friday to you!

@#17.

Best of luck with your National 5 Art and Design. With this level of thought, I'm sure a good pass is in the bag ... :)

Maybe...

Frankly that comment above is just condescending, sneering and bullying. Not good.

It’s strange times when Fat Bloke on Tour is making the most reasonable commentary.

No. 21. were life so simple!
As here is FBoT's comment no.14 on Feb 13 2024 on the outline proposals (in old money stage C) on the development now granted permission. And I quote -

''OMG -- Terrible.
Filler we do not need.
Lego Block design vibe that offers no connection to what was there before.

Just an exercise in scaling the biggest block possible to maximise value in the present with no thought to the future.

60's style dross will be the outcome if we are lucky."

Yeh, its a funny old game saint, init!

Given the howls about this development -- quite a lot of it justified -- the silence about the Reid Building is strange.

Might be a case of let sleeping dogs -- and it is a dog that would win Crufts -- lie.

Exactly.