Councillors topple Speirs Wharf build to rent towers
February 24 2021
Glasgow councillors have gone against the advice of planners to refuse the construction of 182 build to rent apartments at Speirs Wharf, citing issues around their scale, location and a lack of green space.
Stallan-Brand Architects and Hocton Securities had proposed to transform the canal-side district by erecting two towers, the taller reaching 20 storeys, on land bounded by Farnell Street and Sawmillfield Street that would have opened directly onto a towpath opposite B-listed warehouses, but this was rejected by 11 members of a 15-strong panel of councillors.
Speaking to the Evening Times councillor Alan Casey raised concerns over a possible contravention of the city development plan although planners have confirmed it would be acceptable. He said: “This rings alarm bells in terms of a massive over development of this site given that the density is so high and the lack of open space that has been identified. It just seems over proportionate to what we would approve at committee and I have significant concerns about that."
Councillor Josephine Docherty added: “On the screen, this development looks wonderful and acceptable. But in my heart, I feel we are rebuilding something Glasgow rejected decades ago. The high density worries me, and I think it it’s going to be a concrete jungle – it’s the sort of thing we got rid of in the old days in the Glasgow Gorbals.”
Reacting to the decision Paul Stallan of Stallan-Brand told Urban Realm: "It’s worth noting that our Speirs Wharf design was fully recommended for approval by Glasgow’s Planning team and was supported by Glasgow’s Urban Design Panel. In this instance, the planning committee decided not to support their own officers advice believing the development was over dense.
"Whilst disappointed we fully respect members personal views. We confirm however that our proposals were developed in response to the City’s planning policies which are encouraging greater urban density with sights set on doubling Glasgow’s existing metropolitan population by 2040. Glasgow has published its commitment to delivering its sustainable ‘Compact City’ ambitions.
"Against this context, we will review with our client what options are available to us. We are positive there is a route forward."
Farnell Street would have been transformed from a neglected cul-de-sac by opening up canal access
Planners were of the view that a tall building in this location could be justified as its positioning retained key views of a B-listed warehouse while acting as a symbol for the emerging neighbourhood.
|
22 Comments
The design emphasises the inappropriate massing of the building by expressing the horizontal floor plates, which over-sizes it to the eye. Each visualisation is taken from an oppressive angle that demonstrates either the height, the overshadowing, or lack of human scale and green space. Not to mention that the elevations are fussy and disproportionate. Buff brick and sepia tones? Very unappealing.
I don't understand why Glasgow would wish to reject someone wanting to invest significantly in the area
When you look at the utter garbage tower they are building at New City Road you have to wonder why this didn’t get planning
A lot of Councillors are just random people with no relevant expertise in architecture or urban design, a lot of them have no expertise in anything at all, so it is a really strange system for them to make decision about things they don't know much about.
Councillor Alan Casey was a joiner and a drummer and Josephine Docherty doesn't even say what she was, hardly the expertise required to make such key decisions.
Seriously questionable typology and townscape. It is understandable in light of the lack of a coded, coherent masterplan for the district.
Point blocks are inappropriate and a more linear, low-rise solution that actually addresses the immediate context and the edge of the canal would make much more spatial sense. No, instead we disperse, shrink away from the active edge of the canal and generally hide the active domain of the proposal.
I've absolutely no objection to towers in the right place. This is the right kind of development in the wrong location. The city really needs to get a grip of places like this, whose 'masterplans' are getting on for 20 years out of date (and which were never really adopted anyway),otherwise we get stuff like this, we get stuff like Yorkhill Quay. You do not need to be an expert in the built environment, an urbanist, planner or architect to instinctively know that the proposal is incongruous in its setting.
PS, it is the city centre population that is proposed to be doubled and not the ‘metropolitan population’.
Tough gig -- Spiers Wharf nimbys were always going to be a difficult crowd.
Lack of green space -- surely the canal is a linear park?
Then you have the issue that the Cedar Street multis are only 330m away.
Consequently it might just be mid ranking filler but it is filler that someone wants to build. What is the alternative and why has it not been built?
Really poor decision.
The usual reasons will be given by the usual suspects but we should put in more effort to deal with our climate.
90% coverage / partially open at the sides with some thought into what could be provided regarding the public realm -- might be worth some investigation.
There are many places in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore where million of people live in high density tall buildings without much issue.
Part of the reason high-density living here didn't seem to work is that they put unhygienic anti-social people like drug addicts into them and normal people didn't want to live there. Just don't put anti-social people into them.
It is a really ugly building and this is NOT Hong Kong. It is Glasgow.
Don't buy in to what the UD panel say. They basically smooze up to any architect they see worthy rather than give a rounded response.
While I agree that a tall building isn't necessarily the best for this location, I do really hate this kind of comment.
Glasgow has been a high-rise city for a long time now, and it's time that we embrace that again. Glasgow may not be Hong Kong but it's not a genteel village either.
The issue has to be that if someone is daft enough to invest in a project like this -- subject to some basic standards of habitability and design / no white render -- they should be allowed to get on and do it.
Pushing back on the "no bad" while waiting on the brilliant is not a great strategy to rely on.
As my long lost days at the dancing keep reminding me -- we need to keep it real.
Re-glasgow -- they have more photos showing a lot more detail.
Just saying like ...
Post your comments
Back to February 2021
Like us on Facebook
Become a fan and share
If it was already passed for student residence why is industrial use cited as a reason for refusal. Comments about concrete jungle are misplaced.