Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Privacy

Pewter Pot plans panned

July 13 2011

Pewter Pot plans panned
Bonar Associates have drawn up plans to redevelop the Pewter Pot pub in Glasgow’s west end into residences for 108 students.

Designed for Glasgow University by developer Joe Logan the scheme is intended to “celebrate” the Glasgow tenement, one of which once proudly stood on the site until the 1960s.

Sporting traditional materials and a mansard roof the scheme will also partially obscure a low quality brick housing estate.

Logan said of the scheme at a community meeting: “It is a modern building but it also builds on the traditions of what we have seen elsewhere in Glasgow. We are trying to imagine what the tenements that were demolished might be like today.

“The proposal is to make a building which uses stone, slate, traditional materials, combined brick and with decorative features.”

These words failed to win over several local objectors who claim the building as it stands must be classed as “over development”.
An attempt has been made to engage the street with artist commissioned glass
An attempt has been made to engage the street with artist commissioned glass
The six storey scheme rises above the tenement line
The six storey scheme rises above the tenement line


#1 Posted by wang on 13 Jul 2011 at 11:00 AM
We are trying to imagine what the tenements that were demolished might be like today.
(but add in at least two more floors, remove any expensive details and try to "obscure a a low quality brick housing estate" with a low quality brick base)
would be interesting to see a street elevation along there, can't understand how anyone would think a six storey building on the corner of two streets made up of two storey houses is overdevelopment....
#2 Posted by Graeme on 13 Jul 2011 at 12:00 PM
I think this looks reasonably neat from the corner view, but not so clever at the gable end and the brick plinth is quite a let down..
berba hooki
#3 Posted by berba hooki on 13 Jul 2011 at 14:05 PM
This is as grim as a grim building that's been painted all over with a coat of grim paint then beaten soundly with a big grim stick. Grimly. Call that celebration?
Mies van der Rohe
#4 Posted by Mies van der Rohe on 14 Jul 2011 at 14:04 PM
#5 Posted by Neil on 14 Jul 2011 at 17:42 PM
It's clearly over-large for the site. The massing is unsubtle, the detailing just bland. Could be from 1982, which I suppose means they could spin it as post-punk...
#6 Posted by Alastair on 15 Jul 2011 at 14:34 PM
Looks like over development, but a massive improvement to a street that has become scruffy and in need of TLC - its an indicative design and the elevations can be softened/enhanced as required to make fit.
noah murney
#7 Posted by noah murney on 15 Jul 2011 at 21:26 PM
This is a cynical stackem-packem-rackem development. Comparisons with a tenement are misleading. Those were designed for a multitude of family types, with shared closes and an eye to creating something that the occupants could call 'home'. This is a one-entrance battery chicken student coop
of cells.

The developer should quit the fake eulogising, and focus on creating a place that people will be happy to live in and live beside. Alternatively, just get on with the S-P-R method, and stop insulting our intelligence with sentimental tenementalism.

And what's a mansard roof doing in Glasgow?
#8 Posted by FW on 16 Jul 2011 at 09:09 AM
Clearlt the mansard is to reduce the scale whilst keeping the numbers up, you're right Noah it has nothing to do with Glasgow but I'll bet it came as a consequence of the discussion with planners. I don't have a particular problem with this development, it's a non descript building which fills a corner, of which there are many in Glasgow. As student accomodation goes it's a decent project, the developer would have to stack em to make the finances work, that's the way it is.
#9 Posted by Meteor on 17 Jul 2011 at 18:23 PM
Putting the issues of financing, over-development, lack of scale and disregard for context to one side, there is no excuse for this sort of incompetent, third-rate architecture in Glasgow.

Scotland with Style? You're having a laugh, mate.
#10 Posted by FW on 17 Jul 2011 at 19:48 PM
not incompetent, it is what it is. student accomodation, stone clad as a consequence no doubt of west end location and other conservation issues and heavy on the numbers to make it stack up for the developer. mansard as a result of trying to reduce the scale to satisfy local area concern. It's a non descript building, that's all not third rate at all.
#11 Posted by wang on 18 Jul 2011 at 11:54 AM
it is what it is - i.e. completely inappropriate developer/profit-led rubbish that has the sheer cheek to say it celebrates the glasgow tenement - sounds like total nosense to try and pull to wool over the public eyes, it would be a non descript building if it wasn't four storeys taller than anything else on the block....
#12 Posted by FW on 18 Jul 2011 at 15:50 PM
I can see there will be no reasoning with you here, neither is there a discernable building height nor typology in this area of the west end
#13 Posted by FW on 18 Jul 2011 at 15:55 PM
Glasgow was built by developers that were motivated by profit, nothing wrong in that.
#14 Posted by wang on 18 Jul 2011 at 16:03 PM
you are right,
however, on an urban block containing low rise development it is completely inappropriate to put a building of this scale and justify it by saying it's meant to be something like a glasgow tenement!
it's like saying a upvc conservatory is a nod to joseph paxton...

i wonder if the "designer" actually ever visited this site of if it was just an in house competition to see who could cram the most students into a tight corner site
#15 Posted by wang on 18 Jul 2011 at 16:06 PM
...and glasgow might have been built by developers, but not spec house developers or student accomodation developers - and just because it happened before it doesn't still have to happen!!
Ayn Rand
#16 Posted by Ayn Rand on 19 Jul 2011 at 15:23 PM
If only Architects were more principled as in the Gary Cooper type thing in The fountainhead
#17 Posted by Jimbo on 19 Jul 2011 at 16:17 PM
Have any of the boot-sticker-inners above got any better ideas or design solutions, or is this just a the usual hit and run comments / bitching section?? I don't think this represents overdevelopment in terms of scale and massing and there are plenty of mansard roofs in Glasgow (they don't have to be old to qualify...). However, I do think that the ground floor facade and the narrow fenestration are a bit odd (the latter of these could be linked to a high density induced internal layout I admit). The removal of an old boozer on a decrepit site and its replacement with students who provide and support much of Glasgow's 'buzz', which many of the above folk no doubt enjoy, is a good thing in my opinion.
#18 Posted by wang on 19 Jul 2011 at 17:59 PM
oh sorry, are we not allowed to critique anything put up on the site unless we have designed an alternative scheme??
i walk past this site daily and i would say that that scale and massing certainly represents over development - no political agenda on students either, just the wrong building on the wrong site (with a completely outrageous justification behind it)
#19 Posted by Jimbo on 19 Jul 2011 at 18:08 PM
I think you should look up the difference between critique and criticism!
#20 Posted by wang on 19 Jul 2011 at 19:21 PM
it would be critique if there was anything positive to comment on here, unfortunately there isn't.
i would like to hear why you think the development isn't over developing the site?
or what this building has to do with a tenement (or what a mansard roof has to do with a tenement) and why replacing a local pub with 100 students is good for the "buzz" as you put it
#21 Posted by FW on 20 Jul 2011 at 07:32 AM
the Glasgow tenement was a response to an imediate and sustantial housing need, its materials, structure, mass, scale and height was directed by the availability of those materials, social class and even the limits of engineering at that time, so in this respect it is like a tenement, mansard included, sorry.
#22 Posted by FW on 20 Jul 2011 at 07:52 AM
.........and 19th century economics of course,as this is directed by 21st century student accomodation economics
#23 Posted by Jimbo on 20 Jul 2011 at 08:22 AM
If you can't find one little positive aspect about the scheme, Wang, then it simply reflects your over cynical approach.

Bang on response from FW there. In terms of the scale and massing, I think the site and its surroundings have the capacity to absorb it and there won't be much of an impact. I don't know how much an average student pumps into the economy of Glasgow each year, but I know that students make a significant contribution to sustaining Glasgow’s bars, restaurants, pubs and shops etc, which all combine to create a sense of place which most folk can enjoy one way or another. I don’t think the existing pub makes much of a contribution to this… that’s all I’m saying.
#24 Posted by wang on 20 Jul 2011 at 08:48 AM
apologies, i had forgotten about the redrow tenements and the wimpey tenements too!
the one little positive is that something is happening with the site, the major negative is that this is the solution being pushed through on pretense...
i would argue that flats for working people would contribute more into glasgow than students, they just don't pay developers as much in the current climate, studentspay no council tax and the majority living in student residences like this are only there during term time, that's hardly a massive contribution
#25 Posted by Ppl on 20 Jul 2011 at 12:31 PM
Simple fact is that its absolutely gash.

There is no getting around that.
#26 Posted by Ppl on 20 Jul 2011 at 12:32 PM
Simple fact is that its absolutely gash.

There is no getting around that.
#27 Posted by "El" on 20 Jul 2011 at 16:55 PM
Bored now!
The world develops through change.
If closed minds can't adapt they perish. Same goes for those who are too open, they just leave themselves exposed to every Tom, Dick and Harry. A nice middle ground should be found.
Unforunate thing, for most people involved in Architecture, is that they have no idea where this is.
#28 Posted by "El" on 20 Jul 2011 at 17:00 PM
Not amazing.
Not awful.
I would say that it is nowhere near as bad as some of the stuff that has published on here over the last couple of years.
#29 Posted by Jimbo on 21 Jul 2011 at 08:25 AM
Bored too El, mainly by the narrow-minded ranting... Good to see a carefully thought out, well measured comment on here for a change though, I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts.
#30 Posted by wang on 21 Jul 2011 at 09:54 AM
well, c'mon then jimbo, let's hear the merits of the scheme then, all you have done is disagree with all the critisism, take sly digs and say how good students are for glasgow.
as has been said, the only thing this has in common with a tenement is that it's a roof over a head when needed, this can be said of high rises and all spec building,
students contribute very little to the economy of the city in comparison to tax paying employees, and we still haven't heard why a six storey buiding on the corner of an urban black containing two storey low rise accomodation is not over development
i guess we can leave you to say how well thought out the views you agree with are and how norrow minded the ones you don't are - without actually contributing anything yourself...
the point that el raises about change is indeed correct, but why must this building be seen as a tenement, why is it not something new, on it's own standing - the reality is that this is nothing new, repeating the same old cram-em in developer approach with no regard to urban fabric as long as there's enough units on the site, look what dualchas did with the long house, they actually studied it and re-interpreted it, they didn't just say, they did - this scheme moves nothing forward as it claims (apart from the developers bank balance)
noah murney
#31 Posted by noah murney on 22 Jul 2011 at 14:02 PM
I'm sure the quality of comment and debate would improve if the articles included plans, sections etc, and if the developers and architects included some brief background notes to explain how they arrived at their preferred solution.

For instance, a google map view shows this site might have river views from its upper floors. This could be justification for the proposed building height, but probably not for the fenestration.

This level of information would be much more informative and interesting, compared with vague statements about tenements, which tell us nothing.
Frank Lloyd Wright
#32 Posted by Frank Lloyd Wright on 22 Jul 2011 at 16:43 PM
Ah, but that would involve some actual journalism taking place. Something that seems highly unlikely.

Reading the articles on this site is cringeworthy at best. They often stop in the middle of sentences and have mangled structure to them.

I come here mainly for the arguments. And the animal puns - that was a high water mark for sure!
#33 Posted by FW on 23 Jul 2011 at 06:46 AM
The standard of debate would improve if people attached their names to their posts. Simple as that.
Frank Lloyd Wright
#34 Posted by Frank Lloyd Wright on 23 Jul 2011 at 09:13 AM
Yes, like I do.

#35 Posted by Jimbo on 26 Jul 2011 at 10:37 AM
Not necessarily FW, because obviously a lot of the folk posting work in the industry, personal and professional opinions don't always align, so they might not post at all, or at least it would be diluted down comments etc!!

Post your comments


All comments are pre-moderated and
must obey our house rules.


Back to July 2011

Search News
Subscribe to Urban Realm Magazine
Features & Reports
For more information from the industry visit our Features & Reports section.