In the context of cop26 there is surely an urgent need to enact legislation that would require a sustainability assessment before demolition of a dwelling is to take place. It may be the case here that the flats expensive to fix, but it is surely not impossible to reconfigure them to meet modern needs, certainly for less than £54,000,000. More likely, the housing association is keen to develop some shiny new units, regardless of the embodied carbon involved.

I live here, there are 624 flats (6 flats to a landing 26 stories x 4 blocks). There is a problem in winter with heating the flats but it is not the construction which is solid, it is the living room windows, where it is difficult stopping your heating blowing out the front door. If they are building eco houses on the cleared site, the pitches and perhaps part of the hub site you could maybe squeeze in 250 units(?) at best. All the years I`ve lived here my landing has been full. I think the "low occupancy" is down to the bed sit flats (corner flats are 1bedroom - middle 2 flats on a landing are bedsits). This could be sorted by joining bedsits over 2 floors to make a much larger upstairs/downstairs flat (you could make 26 in a block 104 over the 4 blocks).These would be much larger easily let flats than the bedsits which are cr*p. The flats did have a bit of a reputation but over the years it has calmed down a lot. I don`t want £900,000 spent on YET more cctv, the area is FULL of the things. The problem is of the outside reputation of the area, which is not justified and more cctv makes the place look more intimidating than it actually is. If people want to keep the density of population in the area. 1. fix the living room windows. 2. Get rid of the bedsits by joining them over two floors to make much larger flats. 3. Brighten the area up get rid of some of the cctv and promote the area positively. The west end, botanic gardens, the canals, byers rd and Maryhill sports centre are all 5-10 min walk away. I don`t know if this would be more than the £54,000,000 cost of pulling them down and building far fewer houses on the cleared site but over the years this has been a good secure home for me and I would be sad to see them go. I think the majority of residents will take the relocation money and promise of a shiny new home though.

#2 - probably the best response I have seen written on this forum in a long while. You, as a resident, have a much better understanding of place than the rest of us outside commentators.

I think your creative thinking is exactly what is needed - Collective Architecture did an excellent upgrade of Woodside high rises recently so why cannot we use their scheme as a precedent for these blocks? It seems a no brainer, especially in light of Glasgow hosting COP 26. Improve thermal performance, improve air tightness, improve the layouts of the flatted apartments and improve the resident's quality of life, all the while retaining the existing buildings. If the structure of the blocks is sound, then the question comes down to having a competent designer on board. As has been proven by Collective at Woodside, improvements can be made.

https://www.collectivearchitecture.com/projects/woodside-multi-storey-flats

Agree with the comments on density. This is North West End with great amenities. Either upgrade the blocks or go for 'New Gorbals' tenements.

HT @ 23.57

Interesting counterpoint offering a low cost alternative to the current trend of HAs on an ego trip spending Holyrood donations on ever bigger / grander schemes that scream trendy wendy / of the moment design vibe.

Could this be social housing's "Stonehouse" moment?

Has no-one thought about the opportunity cost of tearing down and building back up?

Are we now playing games around the VAT rules?

Sketch of low rise housing looks awfully familiar. Fine to use other developments as design inspiration, but this is an obvious trace-over of Abode by Proctor Matthews. I wish them the best of luck if they're appointed for this redevelopment, and the best of luck in their copyright infringement case if not.

https://www.proctorandmatthews.com/case-study/abode-great-kneighton

I have to agree with #3. #2 makes the most sensible, positive and well thought through comment of the year for sure. You have convinced me of your alternate approach!

Some really good comments here so far, especially (and obviously) #2.

Also seems like an absolute waste to use a site this well connected for a suburban housing estate. As the long-term steward of the area the HA really should be thinking bigger and better - why not retain+refurb the towers AND redevelop the land around them?

Have lived in one of these flats for many years. Some information about them in addition to that given by High Tower. These blocks are solid structurely. The way they were built makes them safe from a fire spread point of view. The central heating to each flat is part of the Wyndford District Heating System just installed 10 to 12 years ago. At that time thick non combustible external insulation was put onto the walls. All the flats were rewired and had new kitchens installed. In the last three years new bathrooms were installed. During this time two of the blocks had new lifts installed. In addition the common entrance areas have all had new glass doors and window areas installed. All the common areas like the landings and fire stairs have been repainted and all the lighting in the public parts of the buildings rewired and fittings replaced including with energy saving units which dim until they detect movement. The flats have very generous storage space . Dividers have been installed so that each tenant now has their own balcony and not one common one.So what I have written describes the investment of many millions of pounds that has been made not thirty or forty years ago but recently to upgrade these flats. And the views from the higher floors are stunning ---as far as the Southern Uplands, to the Highlands, Ben Ledi and the top of Arran. What they would need to be more attractive is on site concierge services and for some tenants on site support. It is scandalous after all the upgrading that has been done that this proposal to demolish is being made. Apparently the structural design would make it so expensive as to be not doable to make two of the one appartment flats one above the otherinto one. Each one appartment flat has a bathroom and kitchen identical to the other flats. They too have good storage space and the big room which is larger than the the sitting rooms in the houses with a bedroom has a partition which shields the sleeping area. So they are far superior to much bedsit accommodation folk live in in the private sector.