Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Privacy

Alan Dunlop secures East Park commission

November 15 2013

Alan Dunlop secures East Park commission
Alan Dunlop Architect, together with ERZ landscape architects and project managers PMP, has been commissioned to design a series of extensions to children’s charity East Park’s existing Maryhill home.

The project follows on from Dunlop’s previous work delivering Hazelwood Primary and will entail creation of 1,000sq/m of residential space, respite accommodation and classrooms for children with learning difficulties.

This space will take the form of three ‘uncluttered’ buildings of paired detailing arranged around a ‘town square’, accessible from a new pedestrian entrance from Maryhill Road.

Commenting on the work Dunlop said: “It’s a challenging and ambitious project. By focussing on international standards of best practice, my clients intend to create a centre of excellence for the teaching and residential care of children and young people with acute needs and encourage free movement and sense of independence while ensuring a safe and secure learning and living space.

“The placing of class rooms to the north of the existing garden has opened up the possibility of a south facing, secure and pleasurable environment for pupils and teachers with easy access to green space.”

Work is scheduled to start on the scheme in June 2014 following submission of a planning application in February.
A new entrance will provide direct access from Maryhill Road
A new entrance will provide direct access from Maryhill Road
A town square forms the heart of the proposals
A town square forms the heart of the proposals

New build elements have been designed to impart a distinctive identity to East Park
New build elements have been designed to impart a distinctive identity to East Park
New buildings and landscaping will create an empathetic and supportive environment
New buildings and landscaping will create an empathetic and supportive environment

New studios and classrooms are single storey, with circulation and access extrapolated from the existing school plan
New studios and classrooms are single storey, with circulation and access extrapolated from the existing school plan
Service and vehicle access has been reworked to clearly demark academic and residential environments
Service and vehicle access has been reworked to clearly demark academic and residential environments


boaby wan
#1 Posted by boaby wan on 15 Nov 2013 at 12:50 PM
very pretty looking sketches as always but really difficult to read in this instance, something very 60s/70s about them
#2 Posted by shabbadoo on 15 Nov 2013 at 13:51 PM
Ok, Im just gonna say it……… is hand drawing 3D perspectives with this much detail really worth it in this day and age? As #1 boaby wan also says, its kinda hard to read whats going on. - discuss…...
#3 Posted by steven on 15 Nov 2013 at 15:09 PM
Firstly I would like to say that I am a big fan of hand drawn sketches. I have fond memories of scratching out the mistakes made at college with a scalpel knife and ripping a muckle hole in the paper - those were the days.

I can appreciate that these drawings took a lot of time and are very detailed, however they look overworked to me and everything about them looks dated. The people, boxy vehicles and buildings look like they are from the 70s and wouldn't look out of place in Herman Hertzberger's 'Lessons For Students Of Architecture'. I also feel that black and white drawings like these look a wee bit grim and depressing (especially as it's a school). Perhaps Mr. Dunlop would consider adding a bit of colour or dare I say it...try a 3d render...
#4 Posted by tcg on 15 Nov 2013 at 15:22 PM
The difficulty with this sort of drawing is the evenness of tone. Everything has much the same weight which of course makes the building look massively contextual because the context is rendered identically. The flipside is that the architecture all seems a bit murkier than it perhaps ought to. Lovely items in their own right but no more honest that the most polished CGIs.
#5 Posted by 2013 on 15 Nov 2013 at 16:04 PM
AD, admit it - this stuff is in the past.

Its Art, not Architecture.
Andrew Brown
#6 Posted by Andrew Brown on 17 Nov 2013 at 11:09 AM
Bit surprised by the nature of the comments above. Regardless of how Alan or any other architect completes their drawings, the point is that they have secured a project, ie those drawings have been successful client-wise. I don't always do hand-drawings for clients, but I don't see the point in the critique above. Should we all spew forth drawings using the same technique? The drawings above did the job they were required to do, which was secure a project, not impress other architects. In my experience clients do still have a fondness for hand-drawings, and they remain particularly effective at initial stages.

Save the usual endless nit-picking negative comments for when the building is finished.

Congrats Alan and others involved.
boaby wan
#7 Posted by boaby wan on 18 Nov 2013 at 07:49 AM
Andrew, I think you miss the point (or the one I was attempting to make anyway)
Did the drawings above really sell the scheme to the client or did the client see a set of attractive looking hand drawn sketches and think they looked great (rather than the proposal)
My point was that, from some that on a daily basis looks at architectural illustrations, these drawings are so heavily stylized it becomes difficult to read the actual proposal - I have no doubt the client was wowed by these but whether they understood them is a completely different matter
#8 Posted by 2013 on 18 Nov 2013 at 08:26 AM
Fair point Andrew.

What do YOU make of the drawings above as impressions of the building scheme in 2013?
Andrew Brown
#9 Posted by Andrew Brown on 18 Nov 2013 at 11:40 AM
Boaby, perhaps I did miss the point! I think it's dangerous to assume that a client may not have understood the drawings, but just been wowed into awarding a project. Whilst (like everyone) I have experienced clients agreeing to things only to admit later that they didn't understand the drawings, the majority of clients (in my experience) don't go ahead with a project or idea until you've made them understand it.

With regards to my own opinion on the drawings, I think they convey the scheme, which I can understand from them, with the exception of the drawing named "A new entrance will provide direct access from Maryhill Road" - which I struggle to read. I don't agree with the "in 2013" aspect of your question, as it seems to suggest there is no place for hand-drawing. I think it's great that we don't all convey our ideas in the same manner, and don't mind a bit of old-school (although I tend to lean further towards simple sketches followed by 3d visuals myself).

Sorry for the lengthy response!
James Falconer
#10 Posted by James Falconer on 18 Nov 2013 at 12:22 PM
The presentation of architectural ideas, and the methods adopted therein, is something that I believe is increasingly being less and less thought through.

In a time where often designs are handed to "3d people" and "sketch-upped" with little further input from the actual lead architect, I think its extremely refreshing to see Alan Dunlop persist with his own method of representation. Perhaps the client was "wowed" by the image, but perhaps more importantly, they were impressed at the time, thought and effort put in by the practice principle in presenting his office's design.

I don't believe the drawings are particularly hard to read, I believe they show enough to get a good sense of the scheme. What I do believe though, is that drawings of this type, with this much care and attention, may speak volumes to the client about the type of Architect they are employing.

With this website seemingly continuously filled with naff "straight-from-sketchup" images, I find it baffling that people are moaning about these drawings.
#11 Posted by Sven on 18 Nov 2013 at 12:48 PM
Given that Glasgow is one of the wettest cities in Europe, I would have thought some rain cover should be integral to the scheme. An open plan town square may look nice, inside away from the rain, but if you want it used, it needs to be covered.
boaby wan
#12 Posted by boaby wan on 18 Nov 2013 at 14:08 PM
I have no doubt that these images were not used to win a client Andrew, do you think AD has bashed these out in the hope of winning a job? I would suspect he was paid (handsomely) well into his appointment here.
There is also no doubt there is rigour in these drawings - there might even be a cracking building design in there - however I think the style of the drawing is clouding what is happening.
Surely the main (and only) point in producing any kind of architectural illustration is to convey the aspiration of the project and to explain it - not just show your client how well you can use a pen.
Not knowing this site/scheme previously from looking at the illustrations I am confused at what is new and what is existing, how the building interacts with the streetscape or how pedestrians/users interact with the building.
Maybe there was an intention to reference some HH in these images (given the subject matter) - but in my opinion the style of these drawings dates them and hinders the explanation of the scheme.
I am not saying drawings like this have no place or anything like that, I have seen numerous excellent drawings from AD which are very easy to understand and interpret
#13 Posted by schmuck on 19 Nov 2013 at 13:20 PM
aww naw, not again. why is it that every time Alan Dunlop's work is mentioned, the discussion immediately gets hijacked by the drawings vs rendering brigade? does it really matter? it's such a studenty discussion, and is completely moot.
The scheme itself has plenty of merit, a bit gillespie kidd and coia-esque, expressive features. And their Hazelwood project was a cracker, so why focus on the lineweight and pen stroked and ignore the architecture here?
#14 Posted by Neil on 19 Nov 2013 at 14:37 PM
Well said. Superb stuff. boaby, I think you'll need to go to specsavers if you can't see what's going on here. You could almost build from the drawings!
boaby wan
#15 Posted by boaby wan on 19 Nov 2013 at 14:45 PM
the work presented is drawn therefore why shouldn't that be subject of the discussion?
You may think/know that this scheme has "plenty of merit" but the discussion has centred around the presentation method because it's very difficult to see the architecture through the style.
I don't see why we can't discuss the presentation method - at no point have I said there is no merit in hand drawing or that computer rendering is better
#16 Posted by Neil on 20 Nov 2013 at 09:18 AM
I can see the architecture perfectly and it seems to be without style, hence the 60's and Hertzberger retort. It looks to me like modernism and the drawings, despite being drawn by Mr Dunlop rather that computer renderings look convincing, to me anyway?
Tom Manley
#17 Posted by Tom Manley on 5 Dec 2013 at 14:24 PM
Improving the urban environment in this part of Maryhill Road is much needed, and East Park charity have a great opportunity here in addition to improving their facilities... It would be good if some lighting and more relationship with the street could be incorporated as at night time the area becomes so desolate, especially with all the shop fronts boarding up their units. Good to see this getting the go ahead!
Lesley M
#18 Posted by Lesley M on 5 Dec 2013 at 16:24 PM
Crikey, that is fantastic. #12 why the poor mouth commenst?
#19 Posted by Gordie on 20 Feb 2015 at 20:58 PM
Really looking forward to watching this one progress
Furry Murray
#20 Posted by Furry Murray on 22 Feb 2015 at 16:38 PM
Also looking forward to watching this one
Has it Kicked Off yet ?
Neil C
#21 Posted by Neil C on 22 Feb 2015 at 19:22 PM’s_home_for_planning_.html
Crikey right enough Lesley M I had forgotten all about this. @20 Must be on site now!

Post your comments


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


Back to November 2013

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