Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Privacy
 

Botanic apartments promote ‘living in the park’

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

September 7 2020

Botanic apartments promote ‘living in the park’

Nevis Properties has teamed up with Haus Collective to deliver 39 apartments topped by a rooftop amenity space on vacant ground at Queen Margaret Drive in Glasgow’s west end.

The Botanic Apartments will step up to seven floors and incorporate a basement parking level for 27 vehicles accessible by a car lift from Kelbourne Street. Occupying one corner of an urban block containing an outdoor play park the North Kelvinside scheme lies outside the West End conservation area on land last occupied by a church before its demolition in the 1980s owing to subsidence.

In a statement, the applicant wrote: “The existing derelict site will be cleared to facilitate the creation of a vibrant, dynamic development promoting liveable urban density. Proposals embrace the constraint and opportunity presented by this urban site, whilst protecting and enhancing the wider urban context.”

Standing as a ‘gateway’ to the west end the chosen design solution seeks to juggle high-density housing while minimising overshadowing of the park, resulting in a stepped massing profile.

All apartments will be afforded a recessed balcony with two active rooftops serving to further cement the ‘living in the park’ concept.

The corner block will re-establish the street edge
The corner block will re-establish the street edge
Tiered rooftop open spaces will promote outdoor living
Tiered rooftop open spaces will promote outdoor living

17 Comments

Robin B's Discount
#1 Posted by Robin B's Discount on 7 Sep 2020 at 11:46 AM
Looks nice, though I'm sure the locals will be out in force against it.

I note that the brick detail looks very like a Mast Architects design.
Sir! Sir! He's copying me!
#2 Posted by Sir! Sir! He's copying me! on 7 Sep 2020 at 12:40 PM
Architectural innovators they may be, but I'm not sure Mast Architects can claim ownership of a projecting brickwork detail.
Ex-local
#3 Posted by Ex-local on 7 Sep 2020 at 12:59 PM
Looks great, but I agree with #1 having recently lived beside this site for a while I wouldn't be surprised at all if the locals come out against it.
Brown Envelope Man
#4 Posted by Brown Envelope Man on 7 Sep 2020 at 14:17 PM
City Property were marketing part of the Planning Application site with a closing date last Friday. Nevis Properties were obviously confident that they would secure the purchase of the site by the fact that they had started with the Pre App consultations back in July 2019. It seems to me that the City Council have been disingenuous to anyone hoping to buy a small development site. It seems strange to me that the copy of the Ownership Certificate is not on the Planning Portal. One shouldn't jump to conclusion, but......
Rack 'em and Stack 'em
#5 Posted by Rack 'em and Stack 'em on 7 Sep 2020 at 15:24 PM
If anyone ever needs an example of overdevelopment of a site, this is it!
A bit of artistic licence taken with those existing trees. This proposal will obliterate the majority of the large mature trees next to the site! There is no doubt that this big lump of a building is much to big, and as is sits to the south of the park it will cast a shadow over it for most of the day.
Wee Kev Mac
#6 Posted by Wee Kev Mac on 8 Sep 2020 at 00:28 AM
I'd love to see them build a high-rise about 40 stories high with at least 500 flats on that area of land, covering the area of the park too. Would add so much vibrancy to the area.
Robin B's Discount
#7 Posted by Robin B's Discount on 8 Sep 2020 at 09:30 AM
Agreed Wee Kev Mac. The local nimbyism of 'the development is much too big' should be met with a Life of Brian style stoning.
G Man
#8 Posted by G Man on 8 Sep 2020 at 11:26 AM
It used to be a built up space, a former church, it used to be green space up till whenever the church was built. It could be argued that the church elevation was perhaps lower in height in comparison to the height of this proposal but this isn't a tall building, a tall building here would stick out like a sore thumb when nothing else in the area would support a shiny tower, it would also cause many in the vicinity to foam at the mouth. Fairly decent proposal to replace a mini-overgrown jungle of weeds.
Whispering Andy
#9 Posted by Whispering Andy on 8 Sep 2020 at 13:33 PM
Number 5 - does anyone really care about trees? Come on, you're as well saying that you dont want it built cos its near your gaff.
LORRAINE
#10 Posted by LORRAINE on 8 Sep 2020 at 14:17 PM
What about the childrens playpark that is attached? Is that going too. I am from Maryhill, aka North Kelvinside, went to school there and had a flat right across the street in Kelbourne st and would hate to look out onto these. The area does not need more hosues
Hairy Mill
#11 Posted by Hairy Mill on 8 Sep 2020 at 15:30 PM
#10 Maryhill, aka North Kelvinside? Sorry dear, you mean Maryhill, aka Maryhill.

Ex-local
#12 Posted by Ex-local on 8 Sep 2020 at 17:59 PM
#10 Have you even looked at the images or drawings? The play park is clearly still shown in them. What's so dreadful about marginally increasing the area density and filling in a gap site, a gap site that was a building as early as the early 1900s? Or is it just because you don't want newcomers?
Mr Lumberjack
#13 Posted by Mr Lumberjack on 9 Sep 2020 at 12:57 PM
#9 Thankfully some people care about tree retention!
Whispering Andy
#14 Posted by Whispering Andy on 9 Sep 2020 at 19:32 PM
Aye no bother Lorraine. I look forward to this application being rejected on the grounds that you wouldn’t like looking at it if you lived there!!!

Whisper it.... but the planning process really needs amended to limit the ability of the general public to contribute. This would prevent people coming up with spurious nonsense such as this to thinly veil the fact they don’t want something built, regardless of any planning rules or logic..
Alecko
#15 Posted by Alecko on 10 Sep 2020 at 16:13 PM
Im in for one of these depending on price
Kay
#16 Posted by Kay on 25 Dec 2020 at 14:07 PM
Hi all

I don’t understand why people are against development. As long as there is no social housing and private property owners come through to the area I am very satisfied with the proposal. Currently that bit of derelict land looks horrible and it needs spruced up. If new builds are going to be built so be it. I agree 7 storey building is slightly large and might block sunlight for many residents. I have recently moved into the north kelvin apartments. Really nice flat. I would like to see major development in this area so we can see prosperity in this area. New primary school, botanic apartments, kibble heights and north kelvin apartments is a great addition to the area. I must stress I would be totally against social housing in any of these new developments.
Green-fingered Andy
#17 Posted by Green-fingered Andy on 25 Dec 2020 at 17:12 PM
Looks like it would be a terrific site for allotments.

Post your comments

 

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

 

Back to September 2020

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