January 31 2022

Westpoint Homes have opened a public consultation for updated proposals for residential development at 187 Old Rutherglen Road, ahead of a planning application in the Spring.

The location includes a B-listed cotton mill (currently housing health board services) and the former Southbank Child Centre, the latter of which will be demolished to make way for a 100 unit apartment block, establishing a new frontage to Commercial Road.

The revised plan rejigs the interior configuration of the listed mill to rationalise the floor plan and provide a greater proportion of dual aspect flats. The roof profile has also been rationalised to a horizontal datum, lowering it by 4m in subservience to the saw-tooth profile of its neighbour. A fifth floor has also been squeezed in through a reduction in the floor to ceiling heights and removing a tall band of top floor brickwork as originally presented.

Elevations of the new build element are also enlivened by bronze-coloured panels and brick soldier courses above windows.

In a statement, the applicant wrote: "Planning permission and listed building consent was granted in 2021 for the redevelopment of the site. This application seeks to make changes to the original application which we consider improves the overall development. CRGP, on behalf of Westpoint Homes, has re-designed the proposals to provide a deliverable residential development.

"The original proposals do not comply with current Building Regulation requirements and in fact would not have complied with the relevant standards at the time at which they were developed, meaning that ultimately the scheme as tabled was not deliverable."

Rising behind a low-level boundary wall the apartment block will include a corner retail unit with lift access now afforded to all apartments and ramped access to the rear.

A live consultation will be held on 2 February between 15:00 and 19:00. 

10 Comments

#1 Posted by Chris on 31 Jan 2022 at 08:56 AM

Oh f*** off.

The previous proposal was far superior - stop trying to dress up the fact that this iteration is value-engineered.

#2 Posted by Fat Bloke on Tour on 31 Jan 2022 at 09:06 AM

Stodge -- heavy / bland / boring.
Follows a familiar pattern -- the new blight of Glesga.
One of far too many.

#3 Posted by TheFakeArchitect on 31 Jan 2022 at 09:50 AM

Well that's a bit of a shocker! Could it not at the very least acknowledge the listed building next door.. Also, what's the story with the building it replaces? Seems fairly recent.

#4 Posted by Sue Pearman on 31 Jan 2022 at 09:58 AM

Wow, that is a shocker! Really poor attempt at corner articulation and very top heavy.

#5 Posted by pooka on 31 Jan 2022 at 10:00 AM

A commendable use of all the fecal colours in one render.

#6 Posted by John Glenday on 31 Jan 2022 at 10:05 AM

@3 ZM wrote...

In 1991-3, the Mill Buildings were saved from the “At Risk buildings register” and converted into a commercial centre offering a range of office and public services. The works were carried out by Old Mill Studios and were part of the transformation of the Gorbals which was underway by the Crown Street redevelopment masterplan. The complex proved to be a viable and popular destination and 2 new bespoke buildings were developed for NHS Health services to complete the Courtyard plan. Development was initiated on the back of 25 year leases, which are soon to expire.

Opfer Logan (then McGurn, Logan, Duncan & Opfer) were the architects
https://publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=details&keyVal=9302057DC

#7 Posted by Paul on 31 Jan 2022 at 10:41 AM

This is really troubling. Not just the design, but the demolition of an apparently modern building with no apparent necessity. The planning system needs to get a grip on the issue of perfectly good buildings being demolished for profit... particularly frustrating whilst brownfield land lies derelict blighting huge parts of Glasgow.

#8 Posted by Not The Law Society on 31 Jan 2022 at 11:51 AM

It's a bold statement - accusing another architect of designing a non-compliant building. I think a little more elaboration is warranted as to what specifically did not comply.

#9 Posted by outraged individual on 31 Jan 2022 at 13:23 PM

it's a new bloody building its replacing

#10 Posted by Mark on 1 Feb 2022 at 12:00 PM

#7 - Paul, you've hit the nail on the head. While designing a new building we agonise about an extra few litres/ hour of air leakage through a wall, or an extra 0.1 of R-value ... vast amounts of resources are wasted when the existing building is ploughed into the ground. As John alludes to in comment #6, the lifespan of buildings like this appears to be driven by lease breaks, nothing more nothing less.

Post your comments