Tradeston is on the up as co-living plans come to fruition
July 8 2025
Glasgow's Tradeston district is on the rise with plans to erect 420 standardised co-living studio apartments.
Claridge Architects, on behalf of Copperstone, propose to redevelop land at 100 Morrison Street for the venture, which will combine private and public green space, ground floor commercial units and resident amenities.
The finalised plans are radically different from those presented during pre-planning consultations, with the massing of the eastern block extruded upward to form a 20-storey tower of concrete and brick, featuring burnt orange metal and mesh elements—a nod to Buchanan Wharf.
In their design statement, Claridge observed: "The facade aims to give he building a strong rhythm and regularity, which responds to Glasgow City Council comments regarding avoiding a ‘barcode’ effect. The enlarged plinth, an element seen in the adjacent listed buildings, roots the building and connects each of the three blocks. It forms a strong base for the vertical brick piers that emphasise the elegant tower design. This is contrasted against the horizontal concrete banding of the lower shoulder buildings."
The tower and its associated 'backpack' block will together frame an interior courtyard, open to the street, to encourage activity and social interactions, aided by a publicly accessible cafe. A defining feature of the tower will be its crown formed by an oversized 'sky frame' delineating external and internal amenities on the upper floors. Blank bays presenting to the west are earmarked for a hand-painted sign or lighting installation.
A lighting and public art installation is under consideration
An open courtyard will invite engagement
Planting by Oobe will extend from the reception to the street
The tower builds on the success of Buchanan Wharf
|
9 Comments
Let me explain.
At consultation this scheme was being sold on the idea of a north-facing courtyard enclosed by a deep plan footprint on either side (and tall). This was a major constituent of the designers parti. It was being sold to City Design as this new kind of external space that would somehow find its place despite there being little or no precedent for it nearby. A north-facing courtyard? Anyone that has ever even looked at a plan knows that this will simply not work - it will be gloomy and dreich and I believe this had been brought up multiple times during the associated consultations. The designers have rigidly and mistakenly stuck to their guns with what they thought was going to be this welcoming 'amenity space'. This is what their Daylight and Sunlight Assessment says:
7.4.4
We have included an analysis of the ground floor level space which is accessed directly from Kingston Street. Strictly speaking this space primarily serves as part of the circulation and entranceway to the main building and would not be considered as ‘ amenity’ which the BRE reserves primarily for private gardens. Notwithstanding this, the space does offer some seating which will benefit from shade at the warmest time of the year. Naturally there is a balance in courtyard design which can limit sunlight to the lowest areas however this works in favour of the design of the building itself.
7.4.5
As outlined, the BRE Guidelines advise that external amenity areas should receive at least two hours of direct sunlight on 21st March to 50% of their area. While this is a useful benchmark for assessing the usability of private gardens and communal recreational spaces, it is intended to apply to spaces used for amenity and prolonged outdoor activity, such as sitting or play.
7.4.6
In this case, the courtyard at the front of the co-living accommodation serves a primarily functional role as a circulation space. It is the main entrance and access route to the building and is predominantly hard landscaped and paved, rather than designed as a soft landscaped or recreational amenity area. As such, it is not intended or expected to be a location for long periods of outdoor use, and its shading is therefore not a critical factor in the quality of the external environment provided by the development.
That last sentence says it all really. Astonishing.
And so, 'the open courtyard inviting engagement' really isn't anything of the sort. It has been demoted from amenity space to circulation space because the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment has shown how little sun or daylight it will actually get.
I was going to say that the City's new Tall Buildings guidance should be guarding against such issues, but really this is just common sense. One of these is fine, but if these types of space begin to accrete, then we have a problem. As for the block itself, it is wholly unremarkable.
The section in the report concludes with some technocratic wrestling:
7.4.7
Although the space falls below the BRE’s 50% target for sunlight on 21st March, this is considered entirely acceptable in the context of its intended use and urban setting. The overall design ensures that internal habitable rooms and key communal spaces receive good levels of daylight and sunlight, aligning with the core objectives of the BRE guidance. Accordingly, the shortfall in sunlight to the front courtyard does not represent a material planning concern and does not detract from the scheme’s overall quality or compliance.
As for the last sentence here, we shall see if the Planning Applications Committee agrees.
Who's to say what will happen to any of the adjacent sites. There is no masterplan for the area and no design codes to ensure quality or give certainty about form or materiality.
Any other sites brought forward nearby will be dealt with in the usual discretionary manner within the current planning system and Development Plan.
Am sure we can do an awful lot better than these cheap proto-matrix pods!
Post your comments
Back to July 2025
Like us on Facebook
Become a fan and share
