Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Privacy

CMM propose short stay accommodation for Glasgow’s West End

May 5 2017

CMM propose short stay accommodation for Glasgow’s West End
CMM Architects have advanced plans for new short stay accommodation above a ground level café at Fergus Drive in Glasgow’s West End.

Housing 77 individual apart-hotel suites the scheme lies a short hop from Byres Road which will be let to business, academic and short stay guests for periods of up to 90 days.

In delivering the brief the architects will strive to retain as many existing trees as possible, offer privacy to ground floor tenants and include a variety of ‘meaningful’ exterior and interior amenity spaces while reconciling the transition from traditional tenements to an estate of 1960’s slab blocks.

In their design statement the architects observed: “The building is composed of two component parts; a cranked slab block which responds to the two geometries within the area and, a gushet shaped low building which responds to the curve of both Fergus Drive and Wilton Street. This gushet contains a courtyard within. The vertical circulation is at the pivot of the canted block. This stairwell looks back across the green sedum roof to Queen Margaret Drive and the Kelvin. The core terminates with a lantern.

“On Wilton Street the gushet goes from two storeys to one at the main entrance. The lower ground of the gushet is open to the courtyard. The whole is an object to be viewed in isolation and is perhaps reminiscent of a citadel with its courtyard and tower.“

The development will be finished in uniform sandstone coloured glass fibre reinforced concrete panels with bronze coloured aluminium timber composite windows and doors.
The block has been conceived as an island 'citadel'
The block has been conceived as an island 'citadel'


#1 Posted by MoFloBro on 5 May 2017 at 11:07 AM
Island citadel sounds about right. That's a massive blank wall facing onto Queen Margaret Drive. Not very impressive.
Ali H
#2 Posted by Ali H on 5 May 2017 at 11:43 AM
Hideous impact on a very quiet oneway tree lined street with a shortage of parking.
Dave Calder
#3 Posted by Dave Calder on 5 May 2017 at 12:37 PM
As a resident of Fergus Drive, I always looked at that space and anticipated a new development eagerly.

This, however, is hoaching.
#4 Posted by CaroleNeff on 5 May 2017 at 12:54 PM
Completely unimaginative design for the residents of Fergus Drive to view on a daily basis. I do not see a mention of parking plans either!
Dave Calder
#5 Posted by Dave Calder on 5 May 2017 at 13:36 PM
We are listed in those addresses having had been consulted in the planning application portal although we have had no such consultation?

How do we object to the plans?
#6 Posted by modernish on 5 May 2017 at 13:39 PM
This proposal is genuinely unpleasant.
Fush and Chups
#7 Posted by Fush and Chups on 5 May 2017 at 13:53 PM
#4 Parking provision is not being included as part of the development. They cite close proximity to good transport links as the reason, and mention that this will be made known to guests when booking their stay.

I think this is a worthwhile addition to the area.
I do agree that the blank wall needs to be addressed, but overall much better than the wee bunker currently occupying the site!
Annemarie Ward
#8 Posted by Annemarie Ward on 5 May 2017 at 14:01 PM
Yes concerned about the massive blank brick walls - come on surely you can do better.
Alison Gifford
#9 Posted by Alison Gifford on 5 May 2017 at 14:29 PM
Yes, a development is needed in this eyesore of a corner, but not THIS eyesore - far too high, just plain ugly, unimaginative, not in keeping with anything round about, the last thing needed is more cafés - we are well provided as it is. Parking as already a problem here, and I see no provision in this plan. Why is this design even being considered? It's appalling.
Olivia K
#10 Posted by Olivia K on 5 May 2017 at 15:31 PM
Agree with above. Development could be a positive here, but not this.
It is too big and too high from the looks of these pictures, and will negatively impact the views of the current Fergus drive flats.
Personally I do not think a 'citadel' is a necessary or attractive addition to the area...!
The parking issue needs to be clearly addressed.
#11 Posted by Fran on 5 May 2017 at 15:51 PM
I prefer what is there currently; this proposal does not address the street. I could not have said it better #3 ‘this is hoaching’!
rosalind sutherland
#12 Posted by rosalind sutherland on 5 May 2017 at 16:06 PM
This is an eyesore of a building on a quiet tree lined street. Too high, looks like a block of brick and looks out of place. There is already a big problem with parking and there are enough cafes on Fergus Drive. This will only take Buisness away from the local businesses.

How do I object to these ridiculous plans?
Duncan Thomson
#13 Posted by Duncan Thomson on 5 May 2017 at 17:31 PM
Completely out of keeping with the ambience of the area. A totally blank wall of those proportions is an invitation to the graffiti artists. Absolutely unacceptable.
#14 Posted by Emma on 5 May 2017 at 18:21 PM
I agree something needs to be done with the space.I think proper consultation required with those mainly affected.Also in a city of Architectural excellence surely we can do better than this.Agree no more cafes required.Also please don't cut down any more trees.Parking is definitely and issue.Hoping Doune Quadrant/Gardens/Kelvinside TErrace South Wilton street etc ..get metered soon as we can't get a space on returning from work at 0030 and its getting to the dangerous side now as walking for 5-10mins in the dark empty steets as not enough parking.The flats in Belmont street the new ones apparently have it as a stipulation in their missives that they weren't allowed to own a car as there was no parking provision but who enforces that ? ..and is it true..Its all one to say something but another to make sure people stick to it?
#15 Posted by Charlie_ on 5 May 2017 at 21:51 PM
Your campaign group seems well organized guys!
west end charlie
#16 Posted by west end charlie on 6 May 2017 at 09:10 AM
'massive blank wall, not very impressive, hideous impact, hoaching, completely unimaginative design, genuinely unpleasant, not THIS eyesore, far too high, just plain ugly, unimaginative, not in keeping with anything round about, it's appalling, ridiculous plans, absolutely unacceptable, et cetera ad nauseum.

Even GCC quickly closed access to its portal to this obviously drummed-up posse of Tunbridge Wells indignants. There is clearly no fury like that of the Nimbys.

You would think from the above critique that what was being proposed here was no less shocking than Johnny Rotten on crack cocaine screaming out the telly at you, yet when you actually consider THE EVIDENCE, the proposal is remarkably conservative and wouldn't look out of place in a Parisian side street and no one would blink an eye.

certaines choses ne changent jamais
#17 Posted by dave on 6 May 2017 at 10:03 AM
'remarkably conservative' is the problem...

Have you ever been to Paris? Tunbridge Wells is lovely, you should visit there for writing inspiration
Fush and Chups
#18 Posted by Fush and Chups on 6 May 2017 at 11:15 AM
I agree with #16.
There are elements about this proposal that need to be addressed, but overall it's not a bad effort.
I think some of you forget the 1960s slab blocks further up the road, or that this site is currently a disused bunker causing problems for the small building adjacent.

#17 Have to disagree about T Wells. Lived there for years, and pantiles aside, it's a horrid place filled with some of the most horrible people you'll ever meet.
#19 Posted by Billy on 6 May 2017 at 11:39 AM
Parking seems to be a problem in the west end.Maybe a multi storey car park would be a better option here offering the locals a discount to park their cars. That could be a sweetener. Quite agree no need for another cafe in the area.
Ali H
#20 Posted by Ali H on 7 May 2017 at 20:26 PM
Not just the look and height but the amount of traffic and comings and goings generated by a business with 77 short term lets (ie anything from 1 night to 90) It's the equivalent of a there will be service deliveries, cabs arriving with people staying and the cars that they aren't supposed to bring.
The street is very quiet, one way and already completely parked up on both sides of the road.
the building is significantly taller than the one on the site at the moment.
A development needs to happen, but this seems ill judged.
We're not a drummed up posse, we live here.
#21 Posted by Terra on 8 May 2017 at 08:32 AM
Oh dear.
#22 Posted by Doc_W on 8 May 2017 at 14:06 PM
I used to live opposite that site. The building this will be replacing is pretty ugly in its own right, but at least it didn't dominate the street in the same way this will. Looking at those pictures, the view from my old flat will turn be a blank concrete slab wall. Sad really, for a nice quiet street like Fergus Drive.

I would also be very concerned about parking - the street is choked with parked cars as it is. I'm sure they will say that guests will be encouraged to come by public transport but there will still be plenty who come by car.
#23 Posted by monkey9000 on 8 May 2017 at 14:18 PM
Excellent and exciting use of the site. As a local resident I can only see it contribute positively to the overall "North West End/South Maryhill" area. However, blank gables to the street are absolutely anti-Glasgow in design and the use of "sandstone coloured glass fibre reinforced concrete panels" will not settle the building into the street at all. A redesign is needed. I can see a cafe/bar or restaurant working well on this sunny corner as the 3 on QMDr are always full to the gunnels due to their pokey size. Queen Margaret Drive bridge has an oversized road carriageway - surely if the parking spacing was marked out with carpark style perpendicular bays it would provide a significant increase in parking for the area. It's not the role of a hotel proposal to sort out the local parking!
Jo Beaumont
#24 Posted by Jo Beaumont on 8 May 2017 at 22:23 PM
Far too high. A new unnecessary monolith. There are plenty of nearby small hotels as well as the Hilton even closer to Byres Rd. I disagree that parking will not be a problem, and this design is unsightly. It needs something but why not a couple of homes with their own parking? More eating outlets may also exacerbate traffic and we have not yet reached the log jam that will be caused by the occupants of the new flats on the BBC site commuting. (I cycle before you accuse). If it goes through looking like that, a multi storey car park doesn't sound such a bad idea.
#25 Posted by Emma on 8 May 2017 at 22:26 PM
Interesting to hear all the opinions.Parking is a very big issue for everyone clearly.Are you all in the North Kelvin discussion group too as I don't want to get us sidetracked by asking about other things but anyone interested can join a group which I have just discovered called Nextdoor North Kelvin
#26 Posted by Emma on 8 May 2017 at 22:30 PM
Oops sorry this is maybe the site you are using already? Can anyone help me with Glasgow city Council street lighting as I have reported all the street lights that are out with the numbers and locations numerous times for our area and not a one has been replaced.. are we changing from yellow/orange to white which is great an can anyone else lobby for them to be replaced when they go out?Thank you in advance.Even tonight I noticed the bridge on Queen Mgt DRive the junction of Kelvinside Terrace South and Doune Quadrant are still out.
John Currie
#27 Posted by John Currie on 9 May 2017 at 21:26 PM
This is the first I have heard of this proposal. #5 Dave Calder has said he has been included in the planning application portal although he has had no such consultation. Surely this is fraud. I live
opposite the proposed development and no one has consulted me. Apart from all the previous concerns, at any one time there is anything up to 13 assorted rubbish bins clustered around the phone box and outside the chemist. (this also attracts fly tippers) These appear to mostly belong to the cafes and shops in QMD. Can we now look forward to more bins from the new development? How can I join the campaign group?
Pete 'The Planner' Pedant
#28 Posted by Pete 'The Planner' Pedant on 11 May 2017 at 16:27 PM
As a Planner (the shame...) that also lives locally (i.e. 'North Kelvinside'), this is pretty poor. The site has been ripe for development for ages, and the existing building (formerly Riach Partnership's offices?) is a bit of an eyesore, so a sympathetic/complementary SCALE of development ('design'/finish is surely subjective) is merited here, but not this 7-storey turd. That blank gable directly onto Fergus Drive actually makes my sphincter contract...

GCC Planning website is back online. Object away...
James Murphy
#29 Posted by James Murphy on 11 May 2017 at 21:45 PM
It's not necessary to live locally to object so get friends and family who visit here to send in their own objections, not forgetting that name and address must be given or representations will be treated as anonymous and will not be considered.
Dave Calder
#30 Posted by Dave Calder on 12 May 2017 at 10:28 AM
FYI, the consultation letters have arrived. I will be objecting on the basis of the design and lack of parking arrangements.

I really hope that there are amendments to the design as this could be an exciting area for development.
Ali H
#31 Posted by Ali H on 12 May 2017 at 14:44 PM
My neighbour's letter has arrived (dated May 4th, arrived May 12th), but nothing for me just a few doors up....
Ali H
#32 Posted by Ali H on 13 May 2017 at 14:58 PM
My neighbour's letter has arrived (dated May 4th, arrived May 12th), but nothing for me just a few doors up....
#33 Posted by Bob on 14 May 2017 at 17:37 PM
To access this property, you will have to drive up Oban drive then back down Fergus drive. Or abandon your car at Wilton street. To say that people will simply use public transport is stupid.
Paul Genasi
#34 Posted by Paul Genasi on 14 May 2017 at 20:37 PM
I have just bought a flat on Fergus Drive - this plan is terrible. The building looks uninspiring and like concrete block (which it is), the large wall facing the street is an abomination (the view from the opposing flats is ruined!), 77 rentals of up to 90 days and no parking provision - madness, and 7 or 8 storeys tall surely is not in keeping with the neighbourhood and should not be allowed planning permission - imagine if all the Fergus St top floor flats asked for planning permission for an extra storey and a glass conservatory on top - would that be allowed? Seriously doubt it. Must be opposed in it's current format. There is also no mention of what quality of flat and tenants is being planned. All in all a complete disaster.
Sam Gardiner
#35 Posted by Sam Gardiner on 15 May 2017 at 08:43 AM
I would suggest that these "architects" go back to their so called drawing boards - I could do better - will admit the site has been left to deteriorate but it does have a certain charm as a building - North Kelvinside has had to deal with several property developers ill considered plans - this is a residential area - parking is already at a premium - 77 units would cause parking chaos - also the plans talk about short term lets to businesses - has anyone seen the press about what short term airbnb premises have been used for recently? - the trees in the area are beautiful and surely must have conservation status - I would also suggest that this plan will be the first of many - seeming to bow down to people's objections they will reduce and redraw the original plan - hoping to get their planning passed - the company POPPIT PROPERTIES - was only incorporated in June 2016 - this raises concerns over how involved or indeed liquid they are - who are the directors? - there are many unanswered questions - also calling the place a "citadel" - if they don't know I'll tell them - it means a "fortress" - this also questions he intellect of the company drawing up this plan - even more interesting is that CMM architects have their registered office in Fergus Drive!! - they will be more than aware of the impact this "citadel" will have on the area

Fush and Chups
#36 Posted by Fush and Chups on 15 May 2017 at 11:48 AM
Sorry to say but most, not all, of the objections on here seem to reek of "I was here first and I don't want anything else to change". "I have a car, and your development means it'll be harder for me to park my car so I'm against the proposal".

It is utterly baffling that people would rather have a DISUSED CONCRETE BUNKER than somewhere with a bit of life, and hey perhaps even somewhere to eat and drink. It smacks of NIMBYism.

All that said this will get through planning in any case, maybe with a few minor alterations, but get through it will.

I look forward to being one of the first to eat out on their terrace.
Dave C
#37 Posted by Dave C on 15 May 2017 at 13:41 PM
"most, not all" is wildly innacurate, unless you are actually trolling people (if so, congratulations).

The majority have genuine, and worthy, objections - zero people have said anything about preferring the original building that sits there.

The Minerva Street residential development is a perfect example of how legitimate local objection can lead to redesign on materials and parking/congestion issues.

So yes, the development will get through, but the whole process of planning consultation and commenting is important.

Your comments are unhelpful at best.
james murphy
#38 Posted by james murphy on 15 May 2017 at 13:58 PM
to fush & cups I am against this development I live here ,but I have never owned a car as a non-driver i see what a nightmare parking is at the moment .
Fush and Chups
#39 Posted by Fush and Chups on 15 May 2017 at 17:34 PM
#37 I can assure you that no trolling is going on whatsoever, although perhaps I am being a bit unfair. For the sake of polite conversation I shall aim to be more diplomatic:

1) This site is in dire need of development. The existing building is horrid. It is also causing significant problems for the occupied cottage immediately adjacent.

2) Undeniably, there are issues with the proposal. Specifically for me the large, blank wall facing the existing residents. It is antisocial. I also agree that the development could be scaled down a little further. Whether this makes financial sense to the developer is another matter.

3) I welcome the fact that there is no parking. I would also welcome the news that existing residents are getting out of their cars, like our good friend #38 James Murphy, and using the extensive public transport, bicycle, or Shanks' pony.

4) I welcome the eatery. "Too many eateries" in the area is untrue. The existing offer is not of sufficient quality or quantity, in my opinion.

5) The comments about short term rentals are ludicrous. What is a hotel?

6) I was being flippant regarding the planning process, although sadly what I intimated is correct. Planning applications have a 100% success rate in this city. The council put it down to working in close conjunction with the developers, which may well be the case. Perhaps #28 could shine some light on that particular subject.

In the spirit of fairness, perhaps some of the above posters could be slightly more constructive in their criticism, rather than resorting to "hoaching" and "where do I object"?
Catherine Little
#40 Posted by Catherine Little on 19 May 2017 at 08:48 AM
Will have a totally detrimental effect on other properties near this proposed development re. to appearance, privacy, parking, etc
John Hancox
#41 Posted by John Hancox on 21 May 2017 at 07:15 AM
I think one of my main concerns is that the drawings are misleading and no mention is made of listed building on Wilton/ Kelvinside Terrace west.. This is hidden under a tree by the architect...! Note - comments left here will have no weight with planning process ... UYou must submit letters to Glasgow city council;... Details are on Muchtoobig Facebook page ...
or email to be included in mailing list and to keep up with progress...
Maureen Downey
#42 Posted by Maureen Downey on 21 May 2017 at 17:04 PM
I think the building is a terrible idea.

This is a quiet residential area and will be completely destroyed by the building of this aparthotel.

I feel a better use of the space would be a community based area/centre as this would benefit the people who live here.
An aparthotel will just bring people who do not care about the area and ruin the area.
Ali Middleton
#43 Posted by Ali Middleton on 21 May 2017 at 19:20 PM
Truly hideous and incongruous proposal with no consultation or consideration for the local residents and community. No parking, no trying to blend in with the conservation are, no thought or care to what the community needs. Totally agree that the site needs development but perhaps with the community and not profit in mind.
Robert Morris
#44 Posted by Robert Morris on 22 May 2017 at 09:10 AM
What a monstrous eyesore. There is some lovely architecture in the area and yes, the present building is hideous, but at least it doesn't block the light. The proposed development does not add any quality into the green low level appealing architecture in the area.
I & J Stewart
#45 Posted by I & J Stewart on 22 May 2017 at 21:35 PM
As an owner of a flat that will look directly on to the seven story blank wall, I think the intended proposal is entirely out of keeping with the area. I am not opposed to re-development per se, but the plans should reflect sympathetically with the surrounding area. Considerations must also be given to the actual building process and the noise and disruption that this will cause in the surrounding area. One only has to look at the building works which have been carried out in the old BBC site to see the level of disruption that is has caused to nearby residents. Yes, there is the 60's flat blocks further up the drive but they are not directly looming over the pavement and the flats opposite. The lack of parking and also service use will be an issue too. I have all to frequently been caught behind a refuse lorry and had to wait patiently for it to progress further down the hill to reach a spot where it was safe and convenient for us to pass each other. Should there be an increase in service traffic on the one way system, this will no doubt lead to frustration by both residents and business owners. Yes, re-development should be considered but this should not be to the detriment of the surrounding residents.
Alasdair Kelly
#46 Posted by Alasdair Kelly on 9 Jun 2017 at 15:56 PM
With any developments, the noise/construction would be necessary for any change, good or bad. However, the proposal just seems unnecessary. Blocks a spectacular view from many flats, parking will be made into a nightmare, and I really can't see any issues with the current eateries available in the area whatsoever.

Post your comments


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


Back to May 2017

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