Maybe a naive question this - but do other forum members experience a generalised opposition, at times amounting to almost hatred, of high-rise buildings among many Glaswegians? I'm sure it's true (if it is) of other UK cities, but my experience is mostly of Glasgow.

This thought was again prompted in my mind by some postings on another Forum. Essentially, all the contributors had an evident inbuilt assumption that high-rise residential blocks were all bad and unremittingly bad. No one challenged this assumption (me included). However, my experience in working for the old SSHA in the city in the 1980s was that 'multi-storeys' were popular with many of the most important people i.e. the ones who lived in them.

In one episode where we clever professional chaps thought up a scheme to 'relocate' aged tenants out of what we thought were unsuitable dwellings and into nice traditional low level flats (apartments). When we then consulted with the tenants (something that many local authorities to this day cannot do effectively) we discovered that the tenants did not want to be moved. They valued the high security of their blocks, the generous internal space and the views. Upgraded security services and on-call support services (that technical innovations had made feasible) were what the tenants wanted; and got.

I have recently visited some of the high-rise blocks that the GHA has now ear-marked for demolition. My impression is that most, perhaps all, of these blocks showed the signs of poor management and considerable under-investment over many decades. In other words the problems were little to do with the nature of high-rsie, more to do with post-construction management. The main systemic failure to do with the structures themselves, it seemed to me, lay in the brutal awful external designs. This scenario seems similar to the one depicted in the recent postings on the clearance and demolition of many ex-council houses in Glasgow.

I suspect that this dislike of high-rise residential blocks extends for many people to commercial structures. I myself do at times ask 'yes, but why there, it does not belong there'. One example is the South Lanarkshire HQ building in Hamilton. I think it's a superb example of it's type but wholly in the wrong setting - small town Scotland - and it was a core cause in the degradation of central Hamilton into a car-racing commuter doughnut.

So, do Glaswegians really hate high-rise developments?

Because its easy (and fun too!) to have something simple to blame for all the social problems in the city. Ask anybody in the street and they will blame concrete tower blocks in glasgow for everything from increased crime levels to our poor performance in 2006 world cup qualifying.

Good post - should get some good debate going here! while i think of a more grown up answer

think its true what the bango sez.

they are physical manifestations of post war social policy - they are emblematic of a new kind of Britain that was developed following 2 massive wars. they are easy fuckin targets.

“totems of black magic - sinful stacks of human misery, towers of shite.

walking past stirlingfaulds (23 storeys of black-block hell) yesterday. In the sun trying to see beauty, trying to find something positive about the aesthetic, the tarmac carpark surroundings and the barbed wire fences and glittering broken glass . . . . everywhere.

internally, there are many lost souls - junkies, drunks, thugs . . only a few regular folk left, god help them.

I wondered; Did the designers, did the builders, the bricklayers, engineers, accountants and councillors know what they were doing? Can you imagine they did? Can you imagine they planned for all this misery?

I thought it must have been Sauron's legions in charge of development 25 years ago: orcs with rotting flesh laying brick upon brick, infusing the very structure with pain and suffering, the mortar thickened with human blood and children's tears, dog shit and phlegm.

The superstructure was surely topped off with a satanic ceremony, blessing the steel and concrete with negative spirits; weakness and addiction, hopelessness and disease. (Apparently, a similar ceremony occurred during the laying of foundations wherein a pensioner was garrotted and sunk into the freshly poured grey swill.)

Imagine the designers at their boards - plotting future uses for the rooms they’ve planned: “okay, this flat is for a gang of neds, drunk on El dorado and professional knife carriers to a man. Their dog is long dead and used as a stab cushion, and the girl crashed out on crack is used as . . . . .”

Next door? “A couple live happily together. They are sadists. They have a prisoner they like to torture. He is covered in lice but eats well . . . “

This is my favourite: the flat for two junkie parents are their 6 year old daughter; such thought and care given over to chemically-charged spatial ergonomics.

Hopefully junkie dad will not get into the habit of accidentally scalding his daughter with boiling water, like he did last week when he tripped on the kettle flex.

The architects did not intend for this to happen.

Honestly.”

Despite my nightmarish thoughts yesterday, Personally, I think high rise has real potential in Glasgow and you are right Escotrogen to assume that many of those who live in high rise actually like them. In my experience, their opinions are under represented in the popular press.

Why?

Because it’s too difficult to present the truth in regards to the failure of housing policy, so it’s easier and more palatable to blame ‘hi-rise’.

Bingo Bango is pretty much bang on as far as I’m concerned.

taking carried away to new levels SI!... very funny though

thanks SI, love the garrotted pensioner.....LOL

Yes throughly amusing SI!

Seriously though escotregen has a good point here. I am a child of high rise and I loved living in them. I think in Glasgow the issue with high rise is a combination of pre and post construction management issues. To my mind it seems that pre construction choice was an issue i.e. you were plonked into a high rise whether you wanted to be there or not and that as part of the comprehensive redevelopment process whole communities were scattered to the four winds without anyone realising that this did have an impact on the pysche of a place. It was a very unitarian solution i.e. more about numbers housed and units generated than about less tangible issues. Post construction it is defintely down to management or lack of. Maintaining a high rise is inevitably expensive and I don't think this factored in in the rush to get these things built or if it was it would have been assumed that rental incomes would cover this and alas the Glaswegian economy post comprehensive redevelopment didn't support that.

Yep SI, total Hardcore post, but chillingly accurate.

'Tis true though: "Social problems? Blame it on the Commie Blocks. Thats where all the trouble makers come from......"


A lot of people hate highrise purely because the ones we have just now look shite. They dont even take into consideration the stuff that goes on inside them, just what they look like, and what the people that frequent them look like.

"No, I dont want to see another one of those things getting flung up - not when its going to be full of those people"


For many, hatred of High-rise is a very shallow, superficial thing.

thanks guys!

mind wanders/wonders on mondays.

actually escotregen v good pooint re Hamilton. I love that building but I never really considered the 'blast radius' effect it must have had on the town's reorganisation.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong or right with high rise, the public's antipathy to the form can be explained almost entirely by Britain's and particularly Glasgow's traumatic recent history (the remainder by well documented self serving NIMBY opinions which I wont trouble you with here).

It is easy to criticise with hindsight but, if you look logically at the post war development plans the potential for the outcome we are left with today could and SHOULD have been grasped. Was it malevolance? Probably not, but I do think there is sufficient ambiguity to prevent it being discounted.

Clearances, 1960's
The biggest sin as I see it was the clearances, Clearances. I don't accept as valid the argument that the council were simply trying to improve lives, were that so opinions in the community would have been heeded, sanitary and general remedial works could have been carried out, all at far lesser expense to the taxpayer. Glasgow city council were clearly working to a different gameplan (See Financing). Much is made, much is said of the Highland clearances. The landowning gentry evicting their tennants, ostensibly to improve the lives of those at the bottom of the social ladder. Sound familiar? Both periods saw the brutal ending of an era, the Scottish countryside and urban Glasgow, two sides of the same coin. One happened hundreds of years ago the perpetrators are widely vilified, of the other we hear little.

Clearances, 2005
The contrast with present clearance program is stark, despite what has been said previously the blocks being demolished are ALL half empty, occupied flats have high turn overs with migrant tenants or dossers. Yes, we get the sob story of the granny who's lived there all her life, but people VOTED to transfer to GHA, they are VOTING on individual demolitions, Exhibit A, the blocks in Anderston...
In a high turnout of 81.5% of the tenants, 73.6% voted for the transfer to go ahead
http://www.sanctuary-housing.co.uk/news.asp

... a landslide in other words. THREE QUARTERS of the residents (on a high turn out, 20% obviously didn't care) voted to have their own homes demolished and these are the more desirable city centre flats, quite incredible remember obviously advantage lies with the "no" vote, most people don't like the upheaval and fear of change, but still a landslide. Does that tell you nothing? If (as I think should happen) the vote was open to surrounding home owners, the people who actually have to look at the damn things everyday on route to work, shops or whatever, these blocks would be dust already.

Fact is these towers are an absolute disgrace that all Glaswegians should be ashamed of, ask anyone outside the city of their perceptions and commie blocks feature highly on any list. It's a perception that must be tackled if we are to boost our growing tourism industry. You may scoff, but Stalinist rows of slate grey municipal blocks punching the sky on a gloomy winters evening has got to depress anyone, even if only subconsciously. A lick of paint or tellytubby panneling isn't going to improve matters.

Economy
Another serious issue I have is that of damage done to the economy. Now you can't say that this was evil or malicious. But you can look at the facts of what happened, I take the Townhead Comprehensive redevelopment area as an example as I happen to have figures to hand.
http://www.theglasgowstory.com/images/TGSS00002.jpg

http://www.theglasgowstory.com/image.php?inum=TGSS00002&t=2&urltp=searchq.php%3Fqsearch%3Daerial%26amp%3Bstart%3D40%26amp%3Bend%3D60%26amp%3Bft%3D67%26amp%3Bl%3Dy
The plan proposed to reduce the number of dwellings from 6,500 to 2,400, the population from 19,000 to 7,000, and the number of shops from 420 to 60.
What get's me every time is that this wasn't some unforeseen side effect THEY ACTUALLY PLANNED to reduce the number of shops and services (all of them must have been family run), reduce the number of homes (well built homes), reduce the population... all this from a council who's stated policy objective was to maintain the city's population, power and influence. A council who said the only way to maintain population was to build high rise, a fact proven to be a downright lie by the council's own statistics from at least as far back as 1970 and surely from inception.

Siting
Why not use old industrial lands in the photo above you can see College goods yard, a vast site derelict to this day. Why on Earth could the new towers not be situated there? You have to say such planning decisions were highly illogical, or rather more importantly, logical BUT APPLIED TO THE WRONG CITY. These schemes were dreamt up to replace war damaged housing stock in London, Liverpool, Coventry and in those cities made some degree of sense with the significant scale of war damage. Not so in Glasgow and yet these plans were imported word for word from England (Just like the "Garden city" plans before it), with no thought given to context. Clearly this was symptomatic of a deeper cultural/artistic/psychological and economic collapse going on within Glasgow. That our fall from grace could be so totally catastrophic and occur within such a few short decades is... I don't know. Just sad. Glasgow stopped being Glasgow, we were just any old place. Some planning decisions definately had some sort of political motivation to them. I can't think why Thomson villa's would be sacrificed to make way for deck access blocks, a form of housing recognised at the time to be in critically short supply. On the other hand, responding to accusasions on Hamilton town hall. I disagree. I be4lieve towers are suitable anywhere, I have no inherent opposition to a 20 storey tower (say) going up in a small village. In many ways the balls, shock of contrast would be exhilirating. The Utopian "tower in a park" modernist view would be realised at last. Subject to design, quality controls.

Financing
The financial arrangements that made redevelopment possible were highly dubious. No private sector investment, just massive state hand outs. "Free" money getting shovelled out from London... In a situation like that the culture was ripe for crackpot schemes. If someone offers you a wad of cash with insane stipulations that you MUST use it to build high rises or you wont get a penny.... what are you going to do? As the schemes got larger though and the council ever more desperate to be SEEN to be making an impact they mortgaged their future, OUR present on ever more maniacal plans. Until the recent GHA handover we were still paying interest on construction loans, you couldn't make this stuff up. Vast sums of money were splurged on these supposedly "economic" and "efficient" models, much was made of alleged cost savings from building higher, the true cost was hidden through layers of subsidy. Much vaunted prefabrication proved to be a false economy, despite being untested, unproven the technology was rolled out nationwide. The true cost of all this folly would become immediately apparent from the first tennants moving in.

Building standards
That buildings of such laughably poor quality should be thrown up is scandalous, from the cowboy builders, working to bad plans with lousy designs and poor quality materials. Priority given to haste and volume of construction

Social imbalance
To build nothing but one type of housing, socially rented flats, is going to cause problems. That ought to have been obvious. Glasgow was transformed from a city of home owners and private renters to a city dependant on the state. Is this the root of our present welfare culture? I believe so. When you concentrate your most deprived in a single building, you are inevitably going to create tensions. Now I appreciate that the full extent of the developing drugs epidemic through the sixties/seventies couldn't have been accurately predicted in the forties nor would the corresponding economic collapse have been foreseen. But even the most optimistic of those in such optimistic times must have given thought to problems of gangs, vandalism etc and designed around that. They didn't and that was and remains an unforgiveable failing,

Modernism
I have a problem with the whole modernist bandwagon that took off through the fifties and sixties, to have every architect and planner working to the same dogma, to a man working from the same principles... that's got to be worrying. Clearly every era has its signature and that's to be admired, but you need criticism for healthy innovation. Where were the dissenting voices? Everyone just keeled over and accepted the prevailing orthodoxy.


------------------

As for the present situation, I do believe that architects and planners have transformed their profession over the past twenty years. No longer are they subservient to the state, shackled by ideology. Small indigenous practices are springing up good work is being done. I think this transformation will take time to feed into the public consciousness though, the trauma's of the past are still too raw, visible, personal and recent to be quickly or easily forgotten (and nor should they be).

Recent development has been small scale, a new build here an incision there a glimpse from the corner of the eye. It won't be till we begin to build our own quality large scale projects that the public's imagination can be caught. Today in 2005 the average Glaswegian doesn't know what a good quality tower looks like. They'll be awed by trips to the ESB or Chrysler, but regard them as foreign/alien. We've created an inferiority complex for ourselves that can only be broken by action. When the scaffolding is peeled off Elphinstone, Glasgow Harbour phase 2 who knows maybe even Cheapside we wont be looking at new towers. We'll be looking at a different city, a changed city, a new Glasgow with a new psyche. A Glasgow as radically altered as the one of the sixties, this time we might just get it right.

Because 99% of them in Britain before the 90s are god damn bleedin' ugly.

yeah and since the nineties, it's sitting at around 98%.

It's striking how the various excellent postings on this have mostly sought to place the 'High Rise' in a wider context re, Bingo Banjo on the British need for scapegoats, gweilo on procurement and investment realities, space_invader on... what was he on? :) The most discursive and expansive was gleegieboy's and that means of course it's most prone to carping and qualifying - of which I will now do my bit. But first I have to acknowledge it was a masteful stab at contextualising the whole issue.

As for qualifications: Perhaps the concept of 'Clearances' is too simplistic; the politicians were following a huge groundswell of populist 'something must be' growing since the 1920s at least. I can recall growing in a post war clearances Glasgow where the neighbours were all looking forward and 'waitin fur ma new hoose'. One of the reasons for the end of the old Progressives Party in Glasgow was that they were quite open and honest about not being wedded to the mantra of large scale public housing building of the type that was being produced. I suggest the comparison with the Highland 'Clearances' is fitting - because that too is a distinctly skewed interpretation of Scottish history; now being seriously questioned by the revisionists (what - many Highlanders and Islanders showed enterprise and voted with their feet to get out of subsistence poverty and leave the land!... oh no we cannae hive that kind of talk! naw, naw they wir awe victims!)

Clearances Mx11 The stock transfer ballot was well manipulated long before and then during the ballot; hence the huge majority in favour. The Council over the preceeding 2 to 3 years gradually had denuded funding and resourcing of the legitimate tenants' representative networks. All that was left by the ballot was a frankly risible rump of under-resourced and mis-targeting individuals who were incapable of any truly representative action. Moreover, the tenants at the ballot were presented with one choice "you either vote for transfer and all the promised benefits or you get stuck with your crappy housing and rising rents for the entire future". That is factual; I interviewed several politicians and senior staff in the city and the Executive for journals at the time, and when asked what is plan B if the ballot fails? they all replied there is no plan B -there is no need for an alternative- funny how they all knew that.

Meantime the Council Housing staff got to know of the generous salaries and benefits they would enjoy in the long-tern in the Housing Association world and decided to drop their opposition and run with the money (but the're kicking themselves now). The Neighbourhood Forums were the bodies charged (and funded) with the job of scrutinising the transfer proposals for veracity and sustainability. Then they were offered the option of converting themselves into Local Hosuing Organisations that would get to manage the stock on an agency basis for the GHA... only of course if the ballot went in favour. Hey Presto! the Forums decided that was for them and overwhelmingly started to promote the transfer in all but name and accountable openess (It was suggested to me that if there had been a credible tenants movement still in place they might have been able to have raised an action for Judicial Review on this). Anyway that's enough on that for now.

Siting I think I'm agreeing rather than carping on this. There was some sort of grandstanding politics going on. The Council were aware in the 50s of the Scottish Office wish to 'empty' Glasgow. The race for High Rise was one way the Council saw as retaining (trapping) the population alongside the already sprawling perimeter schemes. It was a rolling disaster inthat the Scottish Office went ahead with the New Towns and emptied much of Glasgow's population anyway. One result was acceleration of the decline of the Glasgow economy as mentioned by gweilo.

Financing with free money from Central Govt (of all parties; it was the Tories under MacMillan who really got the giant scale public house building programme under way). Well yes but, back in Glasgow the Councillors went for dirt cheap rents along with the dirt cheap standards of building. There was nothing 'hidden' about this unsustainable policy... it was just old style municipal politics with an attitide of 'central govt and the taxpayer will have to pay to make it all better in the end anyway - tough on the working class meantime'.

Non-subservient Architects? I don't buy that for a minute. The non-subservient ones are marginal, as they always have been. The only thing that's changed is that public money for the giant schemes are not there. Small scale is not an answer to everything- some of the much-vaunted housing associations have produced boring nasty 'small' schemes; sometimes in locations that we should no longer be building houses in. Worryingly, there is now a retro trend in England based on psuedo market theory. This entails the wholesale clearance of run down residential areas that are categorised as 'unlettable' or 'unacceptable for modern needs' and that must be cleared and transformed (sounds familiar?). Architecs are jsut as much in the vanguard of this retro disaster as they were in the old public housing programmes.

All-in-all, despite my carping, I agree with gleegieboy's overall view that the High Rise thing is all more to do with Glasgow's traumatic recent history... and it's not the only city in that position.

Low-life will still be low-life regardless of where it lives.
Society will not change until there's a Pakistani queen and a black pope.... :)

my thoughts above are a response to walking through stirlingfaulds@laurieston every day for the past 2 and half years - the nearest high rise to me and a good example of why people hate highrise in general. And there are many sad stories associated with the two blocks.

There really was someone kept within and tortured over a lengthy period before being ejected out the window. There really are gangs of drunken drugged up youths who squat some of the flats. And the junkie/flex anecdote?: inspired by what i saw one day in nearby kwik save: a three year old guiding his mum and dad round a supermarket, looking out for them and collecting all the food while mum and dad grunted and blinked occasiionally. Seriously.

The sacrifical pensioner routine was obviosly based on the events which took place during the construction of Malcom Fraser's poetry centre - a horrid affair! ;)

Stirlingfaulds is staggeringly badly designed as is the surrounding landscape. For a brief moment i wondered: did the designers actually want it this way?

It may be a fictional response - but its still a rational response to the initial posit.

@Gleegie:

architects follow money. as esco sez above, the state is no longer the client it once was.

Also your modernism comment, while interesting in relation to 50s/60s architects, it could equally be applied to today's architects. I see very little variation in design or aesthetic approach to the vast majority of newbuilds in Scotland. And the problem for me is that any ideology associated with the scheme usually feels tacked on, retrofitted.

again - you want to blame designers for not designing around gangs and vandals? I'm glad they didn't to be honest. Today's culture of control and excessive safety (characterised by ungainly perimiter fencing at the edges of crossing points in the city and the wealth of cctvs) has seriously hindered the development of pleasant environments for us all to share. Perhaps I'll concede that some designs of housing in post war years actively encouraged anti-social behaviour.

However we should not be designing environments that place prevention of anti-social behaviour at the top of the brief.

not sure about yer comments re garden city importation from england. Gweilo, second opinion?

And deck access for greek thompson? issue was not aesthetics, issue was this: deck access has indoor toilets. greek thompson did not. (well, he personally probably had about three indoor toilets but ye ken whit ah mean) Also, the ideas were not really an english one - more a dilution of the emerging international approach that had sprung from European-seeded modernism.

@Escotregen: why did you ask?

You seem to know already . . . . ;)

Man - we are the best city in the fuckin world you lot! :rock:

Not being able to experience first hand the era I am trying to describe places me, naturally, at a disadvantage. As no votes were cast (rigged or other), the precise condition of the public mood is difficult to put. I don't question an initial enthusiasm in the forties, but with bulldozers moving in and the blocks starting to rise public opinion was only going one way. Certainly upon achieving their new home's complete with kitchen, bathroom etc all for "free" anybody would be ecstatic. But from heady optimism of the forties, to abject ruin in the seventies... you don't need me to join the dots. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "Something had to be done". Clearly Something did have to be done, it is surely however an illogical leap to jump from Something has to be done to We must have comprehensive redevelopment! I don't know who the Progressive party were, but it was surely a failure on their part to forcefully put their own alternative plans. To give people an alternative ie yes build new towers but less and better of them whilst refurbishing the better of the existing stock. If a sane and rational alternative had been offered, people would surely have warmed to it? I do actually agree with the revisionists on the Clearances, I think the fundamental difference though is that the Highlanders bettered themselves, Glaswegian evictees did not. This in spite of the fact that the Highlanders had absolutely nothing and the Glaswegians were given everything on a plate. Or is that because of?

I don't doubt that government did all in it's power to get the result it wanted. I agree with those aims, but the methods have provided an open goal for Rosie Kane and the rest. Moreover it was unnecessary, an open election would have wielded the same reult. There have been no large scale demonstrations, no rebellions, no groundswell of public opinion. Just minority interests here and there. Could it be the NO camp lost because they lost the argument? Help ma boab! The council housing staff can like it or lump it, they do what they're paid to do.

I have heard this many times before, that is that central government regarded Glasgow as too powerful and a deliberate strategy was concocted to strangle and dismember it. Am I alone in finding that criminal? In a competitive global economy we dismantled our strongest assets because... they were too good.

I feel strongly about this so am prepared to use strong language. If we can agree that the schemes were wrong, then everyone who was a party to that has to shoulder the blame. This includes architects.

When you have badly lit underpasses, blank walls, narrow passages, blind spots, you create a breeding ground of crime. That's just common sense (or should have been). I don't see what the issue is with CCTV. Tenement districts had lower crime rates because you had nowhere to run or hide, 4 storey walls of human CCTV cameras up and down the street. Gated communities, obtrusive and obstructive fencing walls are an issue though. These are syptoms of failed design though, not good design in and of themselves.

If you look at the inter war suburbs they are clearly modelled on the English style of cottage housing, garden front and back. My point was we aped these designs and didn't come up with our own solution for our own problems.

I don't understand the toilet hypothesis.

gleegieboy you're right about there being no automatic link between 'Something had to be done' and 'What was done' i.e. Comprehensive Redevelopment... mind you it was even worse because through much of the 50s and 60s for inner Glasgow it was Comprehensive demolition full stop. I'm supposed to be a rationalist so I have to accept your point about surely the people would have opted for a better alternative if it had been offered. The point being of course that in most UK cities, but especially Glasgow, the dominant political party had no ambition or interest in offering a better alternative.

The Progressive Party was an interesting phase in Glasgow's political history. Many would describe them as simply rebranded Tories who realised that Tories in post WW2 Glasgow just weren't getting elected. I think in fairness they did try hard. One little-known fact is that when they were in power in the early 1950s they actually instigated a policy whereby houses in the Merylee housing scheme (then being built) were offered for sale rather than rent. It proved popular with buyers. However, the Glasgow electorate (who we are both trying to assume would opt for 'better alternatives') were easily persuaded that the Merylee initiative was warning of the great dangers if you voted Progressive and the rest was... well, history.

On the stock transfer I don't see that the NO campaign 'lost the argument' because there was no argument - just a very expensive and professional run pro-transfer promotional campaign supported at arms length by the Council and funded from the Scottish Executive. There was no effective articulation of any alternative voice; just a few silly-in-a-valiant-way incidents.

space_invader I thought your depiction was good and not at all far removed from some of the real life scenarios. However, I think I could maybe have had a stab at an equal depiction of some gilded little High Rise corners where residents do seem to live in a 'real community in the sky' and do human wee things like put carpets down in the corridors. As for me seeming to already know, so why did I ask the question? Ok you rumbled me, I did think that most Glaswegians have an intense dislike of High Rise... I just wanted to find out if this is the experience of others... it's a fair cop gov I was making presumptions about peoples' presumptions :)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0586044566.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

For the record - I believe high rise living can be suitable, comfortable, desirable.

Gleegie - deck access toilets thompson - I got mixed up - I thought you were drawing a distinction between modernist flats and the tenement flats that they replaced. Sorry!

Esco - I'm glad you did ask.

Anyway, t'other day, walking past Safeway, Anniesland Cross and a lovely wee lady, blue rinse and a shopping trolley full of Mr. Kiplings cakes (bakewell slices dominating the mix) stopped me, her brolley poking into my chest.

“Son, son,” she said, “won’t ye come wi me for a while - I’m havin a bonnie wee party on the top floor o yon tower! You can call me Annie by the way.”

What could i do apart from . . . go to the party. Always liked the building - from the outside anyway.

The tiny lady led the way. The route is unimportant. The destination is all.

Top floor. A carpeted hall welcomes us both. Scented wallpaper (summer fruits?) tickles my nosebuds. A stunning chandelier hangs in the middle of the corridor. Made from salt and handcrafted by the old polish guy on level 7, it tinkles and glitters.

“We like to make an effort, brighten the place up a bit” said the old senga doll gripping my hand, the chandelier’s hypnotic chime accompanying her soothing words. She’s such a lovely old thing you know!

Shit! I trip over a rubber plant and spill earth on to the carpet - on closer inspection i realise it’s a real beauty - the carpet that is - hand woven, probably sixteenth century, and hailing from the holy city of Isfahan, now in present day Iran.

“Aye son” said the old doll. “You’d be right tae think that’s a wee bit special. Safavid Dynasty so it is. But dinnae fuss with the soil - nae harm done.”

I smell home-cooking. I can hear music in the background. but it sounds like . . . Metallica?

We’ve arrived.

The door frame into annie’s flat is exquisitely carved. Scenes of human joy (children clasping lambs to their breasts, little boys and girls skipping alongside their parents, a family picnic, Joe Jordan’s toothless smile after scoring a crucial goal for Scotland - you know the kind of thing) But then so are all the door frames on this floor. They really have made an effort here, you think to yourself.

“That wis wee jeanie the daftie who carved yon frame, son. She’s blind by the way.”

I’ll believe anything now. This place is rather amazing. On entering Annie's flat, packed full with her pals and neighbours - “Hello son - take a seat!” - I notice the ceiling has been beautifully plastered. Layers express its surface, a topsy-turvy landscape, gentle crests and curves, like icing on a cake, like the smoothest sand on the whitest of beaches -- but upside down. Then I remember - I saw a ceiling like this in Barcelona - one of Gaudi’s numbers.

“Aye. You’re no wrang. Gaudi wis the inspiration” Annie pipes, as if reading my mind. “Bakewell slice?”

I take the cake and look around. Place is packed full of treasure and full of oldies and I’m sick of ‘wee annie’ now. I’ve had my cake and eaten it and now it’s time tae get busy.

I casually pull out my blade and hold it to Annie's chops. I tell her to clear the room and sort a suitcase for the loot I’m going to grab. “Son, son, whit’re ye daein! dinnae be daft! You don’t know whit ye’ve goat yersel intae!”

A grey wall of flesh encircles me. They may be in their 80’s but these punters look more than a bit menacing. Metallica's thunderous roar is now thew soundtrack to events, the gentle tinkle of the salt chandeliers just a distant dream-like memory. That bakewell slice tasted . . . ....funny. My head spins.

I drop my knife and Annie steps back and then forward again: “So son, you were gonnae pure slash me tae ribbons and an steal ma joe jordan door frame weren’t ye, ya wee scum baw!?!?!?” she spits.

“Annie - yer a smart cookie alright!” is what I say. What else could I say?

She grab the ceremonial samurai sword that hangs from the wall behind me. I am forced to kneel down as Annie wields the antique killing device which moments before had been no more than a beautiful compliment to the room’s decor.

I await my fate.

Metallica is bursting my ear drums. Annie’s about to chop ma head off. But then:

“Son - get oot o here. yer a wee fanny. Yer no even worth it.”

“AN YE KNOW FUCK AW ABOOT HIGH RISES!”

At this comment all the old yins burst into laughter, and i realise i really do know fuck all about high rise living.

Well apart from what I’ve read in Trainspotting, anyway.

:badnews:

Awesome, S.I.

Awesome. You wrote that yourself? Or is it straight from the Trainspotting Novel?

This is by far the most intelligible thread I have read on Skyscrapercity so far. I just wish I was clever enough to put something worthwhile into the discussion myself....

S_I see that's one of those wee Communities in the Sky I was talking about... I think that one was in Collina Street :wink2:

I think it may be the only one! ;)

Sorry to keep banging on about this, but in my experience of these votes there were very clearly two sides. The "No" camp organised public meetings and leafleted homes, not glossy leaflets and not large meetings but if you were that way inclined encouragement was at hand. Also establishment support can be counterproductive, witness the EU constitution...

I'll research the "Progressive party", they sound interesting.

Funny you should mention Anniesland tower. Grade "A" listed, fully occupied, widely liked...

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/477Annieslandtower_pic1.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/477Annieslandtower_pic3.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/477Annieslandtower_pic2.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/477Annieslandtower_pic4.jpg

Perhaps by looking at what went right here we'll better understand what went wrong everywhere else?

I drop my knife and Annie steps back and then forward again: “So son, you were gonnae pure slash me tae ribbons and an steal ma joe jordan door frame weren’t ye, ya wee scum baw!?!?!?” she spits.

Tarantino's granny SI.... i used to deliver her Glaswegian..held me over her veranda by my ankles cos i ripped a corner off it puttin it through her letterbox.

on another note, ever thought of doing a script on ned breakdancers that save a sperm whale beached on the banks of the clyde ?? ;)

Funny you should say M_Riaz coz I was recently talking with a mate about nano-enhanced neddy dolphins that 'happy-slap' day trippers to Greenock, Gourock and Helensburgh (with their flippers).

Anyway . . . I'd say march 2003 about . . . .

there was an excellent-ish BBC Scotland documentary about high rise flats and high rise living in Glasgow. interviewed residents, architects, for, against - was not bad really. discussed many of the issues under review here.

Mmm... I think then I'll sound out some of the media folks and see if they think it worth re-visiting the topic given the accelerating 'Clearnaces' now under way

Can anyone explain to me how the Anniesland tower is worthy of an 'A' listing? I just don't get it. Ok its a big statement on the westend skyline but it does nothing for its environs and the way it hits the ground is dreadful. Basic bad urbanism. It's design is clunky and does nothing for me. I've always thought it a poor man's Trellick Tower in the same way that the Armadillo is a second rate knock off of the Sydney Opera house. I cannot see how it merits that status as in international, let alone national, terms its hardly representative of cutting edge high rise design of that era. What was Anniesland Cross like before it appeared?

PS. Spacey, in answer to your question Gleegie is right about Glasgow importing Garden city ideas from England. Hence areas like Knightswood and Bellahouston. There was an expedition to the continent to check out cutting edge housing design there so there are a couple of interesting examples of Vienniese influenced tenemental housing schemes in certain parts of the city (can't remember where of the top of my head) kind of a 1930's 'homes for the future' analogue that might have offered an alternative to this approach but it doesn't appear to have been embraced by the powers that be at the time. You can see some interesting variations on this in Erskine for instance.

Thanks Gweilo, apologies Gleegie.

although importing ideas is not necessarily a bad thing.

For example, I can see clearly that Page\Park has borrowed ideas from schemes in Graz, Austria (and other places the office has visited) concerning communal gardens in their latest Gorbal's housing scheme.

And then there's our generation's obsessions with all things dutch o'kors.

A-listed annies-land: wasn't it because the crew (old yin's mad sqwad) on the top floor threated the authorities to prevent its demolition . . . and they managed to secure a top grade listing despite trhe building's obvious faults.

Mob rule basically.





Okay - I'll stop now.

I suspect there was a desire to expand the listing system beyond pre war buildings. Anniesland tower despite its obvious failings is about the best we could come up with in that era.

I don't think it is entirely without merit though, they seem to have used a higher grade of concrete, I've noticed the building can sparkle white in the sunshine (in marked contrast to its brethren), the glass stairwells are surprisingly modern, the terracotta gives it a warmth not normally associated with tower blocks and ties it (tenuously) to the red andstone tenements around. The slender profile also lends a touch of grace, as do the inset balconies to the rear which break up the monotony of the concrete facade (as you were referring to on Elmbank.) The front facade is diappointingly typical of the period though, the windows are disgracefully small. I believe I'm right in saying some of the flats within are split level? Innovative thinking like this was almost non existant back then. Variety of housing styles is critical.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/delete1.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/delete2.jpg

The towers location within a tenement district and not on top of a bulldozed tenement district softens its impact, as does its solitary positioning not crowded out by rows of clones. This is one of the few towers not to be enveloped by wasteland, it sits on an important traffic intersection on a prime arterial route, with excellent public transport links, a high provision of local shops and services and within an area of above average wealth and desirability not too far removed from the city centre.

It's a friendlier building than Trellick and all the better for that.

Thirties aerial view of the Cross. tower on the central island scrub, with criss crossing pedestrian dirt tracks! Supermarket on the site of the industrial plant.
http://www.mitchelllibrary.org/vm/images/g228/g022880x.jpg

You can see Glasgow's developing sprawl problem in this thirties image of the Cross. The tower is on the site of the gospel tent.
http://www.mitchelllibrary.org/vm/images/g215/g021556x.jpg

Looking down great western road in the fifties, tower on left.
http://www.mitchelllibrary.org/vm/images/g238/g023848x.jpg

Off topic but there is an interesting 1930's tenement scheme here. Rare as hens teeth and a taste of what might have been.
http://www.mitchelllibrary.org/vm/images/g238/g023849x.jpg

Slightly east of above down Great western road, you're in the Edwardian city. (I love how when travelling out of the city you pass through concentric rings of development, the Victorian centre, Edwardian tenement suburbs, thirties cottages, sixties schemes and eighties suburbia).
http://www.mitchelllibrary.org/vm/images/g180/g018035x.jpg

Same view today.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/477Annieslandtower_pic4.jpg

Awesome pics gleegie.

Agree SI. Thanks Gleegie! Much appreciated and they are indeed an astonishing set of photos. If it weren't for those telltale Edwardian baroque tenements you'd think they were of a US frontier town! Especially with that wigwam!

The national government of the 60s and 70s subsidised every floor above a certain level (8th?) in local authority residential properties which was one reason why local authorities were tripping over themselves to build higher at an ever quicker pace!
he
So all we ended up with, in terms of high rise living in this country was social housing built on a large scale in a relatively small space of time all funded by the public sector. Hardly a recipie for innovation, glamour, quality, competition and the ability to learn from past mistakes!

There was definitely a national physche at the time that high-rise was The solution to the burning issue of post-war housing. In my mind the end result was a sort of mix between authoritarian egotism and meglomania (remember this was when planners and local authority were respected kings) and a watered down and cheap officialdom take on modernism (the movement that attempted to deliver social progress and harmony through design and architecture).

Bascially the local authorities conveniently rode the Modernism bandwagon to push through their cheap quick-fix ideas of how people should live but missing out on the necessary intellect and money to really be truelly faithful to that movement... for example modernism sought to nurture a sense of community with in the buildings, however the local authorities ended up bull-dozing long standing communities to create overly tall vertical private spaces with little communal areas, sort of destroy and then hope for the best attidue.
Modernism encouraged the efficient use of land to allow for sufficient communal green areas we ended up with Towers plonked on cheap out of town land sites, the green areas hopelessly out of proportion and very isolated from most of the inhabitants in the tower.... did I say green areas? Sorry I meant car parks! Fortunately Ronan Point would bring it all and the unfortunately associated Modernism crumbling down!

We would then end up with thousands of low-rise estates with equal social and aesthetic problems but then I suppose they werent ever visible from the other side of town! Now we find ourselves in the world of private developers who have the taste for building hi-spec high-rise residential towers, offering few subsidised units... however the majority are sold at a premium... The market is carefully controlled to make sure it remains that way.

I do agree with gweilo and I just can't see by 'sub Trellick'. However, and having criticised Hamilton Council HQ for where it's sited, I can see gleegieboy's point about how Anniesland 'sits on an important traffic intersection on a prime arterial route'... in a way that's all in keeping. But I don't see it's 'friendlier' than Trellick; quite the reverse and I agree with gweilo on the dreadful way it hits the ground.

And gleegieboy I've been trying - really hard - not to say anything further about the stock transfer ballot 'cos we're not going to agree :) - the ballot was nothing more than a 'staged' and planned outcome. But as a very last point, can I bang on about how all-one sided the so-called debate was... the supposedly impartial Council Housing staff were involved in the distribution of supposedly 'explanatory' material to tenants that was all in effect very pro-transfer. 'On the ground' the housing staff in a self-interested way were overhwhelmingly 'advising' the tenants in ways that greatly promoted a pro-transfer vote.

As I said earlier, the Neighbourhood Forums that had been tasked with scrutinising the transfer proposals were nobled with the offer of being local landlords if the transfer went through. The GHA then-Chief Exec. and other senior staff were available on request to speak to the Forums in favour of their transfer proposal without any contrary viewpoint available. As for the consultants hired at great Scottish Executive expense to provide 'impartial' advice to tenants... guess who approved their invoices for payment?... why, the local Council Housing Managers (who were of course very much in favour of the transfer - so if the Manager did not like the advice the 'Independent Advisor was giving out?!?).

There was also the unseemly scenario of a (the only?) member of Council Housing staff who had actively campaigned on the anti-transfer side. He was subsequently disciplined and lost his job... so all the off-stage pro-transfer activity I and others saw that went on was all imaginary 'cos not one member of the Council Housing staff acted outwith their designated role and in favour of the transfer?? Nonsense. This innapropriate role of the Housing staff was only one aspect of how the entire episode was stage managed.

Postscript: The rationale that gets put to me in the saloon bars by those who were involved in the 'administration'' of the ballot process (and who now, unabashed, agree with my depiction) is that the means that were employed are not that important because the longer term benefits are what counts. Well, that's the Iraq WMD logic applied by the UK government as the lying, or at least self-deluding, pretext for war - so we watch as what unfolds, unfolds :wink2:

This is by far the most intelligible thread I have read on Skyscrapercity so far. I just wish I was clever enough to put something worthwhile into the discussion myself....

i agree; one of the best threads on SSC i've ever seen. :cheers:

a couple of weeks ago i was in my hometown of Knoxville, and drove by what had been the city's worst housing project, College Homes; now it totally different and looks like a nice neighborhood via the Hope VI public housing system (which seems to be working in fixing up these areas nationwide; pictures are here of what it looks like now (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=222185) )

but the decline of public housing seems similar in the US and UK, in that the welfare state mentality took over and people stopped caring about the condition of where they lived, and that led to an attraction of poverty, crime, drugs and other problems.

the worst project where i lived now, Tuxedo Courts, aka "Death Valley" is supposed to be replaced by a Hope VI project. hopefully it can help the greater neighborhood it's in recover after the steel mill shut down in the 80s.

but why hate them? i guess like a lot of the projects here in the states, it's poor planning and bad results, like it's been said here.

-

http://www.theglasgowstory.com/images/TGSS00002.jpg


Just looking at the picture is depressing. The decimation of the old tenemants is one thing, but the towers are so far away and leave huge areas of unused derilict land which is a real eyestore.

I'm just back from Vancouver and there they're building 100-200 m high rise river front properties, but in staggered blocks, without the huge wasteland Glasgow has - I've pinched the pics btw from the Vancouver forums

Some pics of Canadas most beautiful city.

http://img107.echo.cx/img107/7061/40611347072407427io9sr.jpg

http://img146.echo.cx/img146/9570/44944090c90eafd0db0gs.jpg
http://img130.echo.cx/img130/224/4494435fe0f162db4b1zz.jpg
http://img271.echo.cx/img271/4624/cityaeriel13wd.jpg

And the Park!
http://img130.echo.cx/img130/6624/4494458260765b020b8ti.jpg

The Beach!
http://www.vancouverbnb.com/FireWorks/sm-EnglishBay.jpg
http://www.steadiman.com/English%20Bay%20NW_IMG.JPG

Truly an Amazing City

And they have a true downtown you can identify with. I'm sure Glasgow needs to focus on all our brownfield and wasteland sites typical of Glasgow's towers....

I don't have a problems with our towers if refurnbished it's just the wasteland at the bottom that's unsightly. The views can be amazing! But we need to ban washing lines on balconies lol

Vancouver isn't a model for Glasgow. Redevelopment on that scale is neither feasible nor desirable.

The density's certainly impressive and I don't doubt the towers are better built and better to live in. But in design terms they don't look that much better than the mess we're shackled with, reminds me a lot of the 1945 Bruce Plan.

Building hundreds of mid rises isn't a smart thing to do IMO. You get all the disadvantages of towers, overshadowing, repeating designs, congestion and none of the soaring qualities of a truly great tower. Better to build less, but taller and better quality. Towers should be the icing on the cake, not THE cake.

I think Glasgow's current policy is on the money. Demolition of our midrise dreck coupled with construction of high quality mixed use talls in Charing Cross and higher density on the river corridor. In fact the Glasgow Harbour stuff would probably have benefitted from being shrunk a bit.

Glasgow Reminds me of Ajman a lot , its the poorest emirate we have in the UAE :)

Vancouver isn't a model for Glasgow. Redevelopment on that scale is neither feasible nor desirable.

The density's certainly impressive and I don't doubt the towers are better built and better to live in. But in design terms they don't look that much better than the mess we're shackled with, reminds me a lot of the 1945 Bruce Plan.

Building hundreds of mid rises isn't a smart thing to do IMO. You get all the disadvantages of towers, overshadowing, repeating designs, congestion and none of the soaring qualities of a truly great tower. Better to build less, but taller and better quality. Towers should be the icing on the cake, not THE cake.

I think Glasgow's current policy is on the money. Demolition of our midrise dreck coupled with construction of high quality mixed use talls in Charing Cross and higher density on the river corridor. In fact the Glasgow Harbour stuff would probably have benefitted from being shrunk a bit.

Gleegie, I wasn't suggesting Vancouver as a model per-say; just a comparision. Glasgow's 60s towers were scatter built all over the city without ANY real thought to their position and density. Glasgow is a river fronted city, whereas Vancouver is a penisular, a bay and a river mouth all in one. When we demolish our 60s towers, they should be replaced by low level density building and good quality green spaces.

Vancouver doesn't have nearly the swathe of derelit space Glasgow has. That picture is only a few hundred meters from the city centre - walking distance! Yet looks like a bombs hit it.

But cluster built designs do have an impressive design and look and inb Vancouver the ground level didn't seem to have poor lighting; The main high shopping streets - Robinson, Davie, Granvile are interspersed with one or two storey shop units

what's it like at the base resistme. American cities often look great from a distance but are empty at night on the street, are Canadian cities like Vancouver the same?

I think cities have their days, their time. Glasgow's was one hundred years ago, when the city would have been dynamic. It's cyclical, Glasgow again though is on the up , give it time.

Alan.

I am not qualified to comment on architectural purity of the bases of all the Vancouver highrises but when I was there last summer I was very impressed with the very lively, somewhat eclectic and varied street life that existed there.

There was a definite European flavour to the street level activity with loads of busy bars, restuarants, shops and pubs catering for masses of young people, middle aged tourists, and men enjoying a beer in what would be their locals.

There was a huge mix of types with the added dimension of the thousands and thousands of young and not so young Chinese Canadians.

While there is one or two areas to avoid the great mass of the down town area is very safe with no worry about turning into the wrong street by mistake or concern that a teenage offspring should lag behind (as they do).

The energy is palpable and while it is not London or New York it is well on the way to rival San Francisco.

I am afraid poor old Glasgow and Edinburgh pale by comparison.

It is well worth a visit and it is an added bonus if you like white water rafting. The most exhilarating in the world is only an hour or so to the north.

it looks beautiful murdomac, there's no doubting that.

By the way the link to the sea is very strong in Vancouver. From massive tankers entering and leaving the fairly near industrial port to the cruise liners queuing up to embark back and forth to Alaska, to the ferries going to the various islands, to the privately owned motor launches up from Seattle, to the sleek yachts and even to the many kayakers.
Meanwhile people hop on and off 12 person mini ferries to the shops and restuarants of Granville Island which of course is not an island but only the other side of a big creek.
JSweeny would like Vancouver I'm sure.

By the way I did read that the people behind the phenomenon of Dubai toured the world a few years ago and were heavily influenced by what they saw emerging in Vancouver.

Perhaps in the years to come architectural historians will debate the emergence of Dubai and the comparison with modern Vancouver the way some esteemed learned types discuss which came first Glasgopw or Chicago?

Vancouver's tower base is very lively: a buzzing cafe, shopping and nightlife area gives it that - and along the main throughfares; yet the side streets are quieter and treelined giving space in an unthreatening way

The population is and has been on the increase for years since and pre Hong Kong and is a very prosperous city.

I know Glasgow has its first hey day last century, but Glasgow ever since Pat Lally's days with Glasgow's Miles Better and the Garden Festival has been improving but its hard work

Im in Vancouver just now!! (Just in an internet cafe checking my exam results, thought Id check up on Glasgow :))

Believe me when i say we could learn a lot from Vancouver. The street life around all these condos is staggering. The streets are always full of life, and are extremely well kept.

Every tower I have seen so far meets the street exceptionally well. Honestly - this place is an outstanding achievement.

I even took a few pictures for you guys to show you what Elphinstone Place will look like, as so many of the condos remind me of its design. I can see why you made the link between the 2 cities resistme - there are literally 100 Elphinstones going up all around the city just now.

I will post the pics when I get back to Scotland in a few weeks so you can see for yourself.

If I was to pick any city on Earth to be a role model for Glasgow, it would be Vancouver.

Anyway, its time for me to go for a cheeky wee pint of Moleson Canadian.....

hehehe, glad i've got support out there NOW, Boy David! lol I hadn't been in back in Vancouver for 20 years so I saw amazing changes to the city since then.

It's a great vibrant city - just hope that Glasgow can take a leaf out of Vancouver's book - but there are similarities: with the mountains to the north - making a great skyline backdrop, and river....

But you really ought to enjoy your holiday - not stuck in an internet cafe lookin up skycrapercity.com - get out and takes PICS and have fun!!

(PS good luck on the exams David)

Hmm interesting. I've been banging on about Vancouver as a role model for Glasgow for sometime now and devoted a whole chunk of my lecture in January to it.

1. They made a conscious decision back in the early 80's to focus on residential city centre towers as a way of enriching their skyline as the consenus then was that their economy wasn't strong enough to produce commercial scrapers. Then along came the Hong Kong exodus prior to 1997 and the handover to China. HK billionaire Li Kia Shing buys up their expo site and the rest is history. An influx of people who's only experience is high rise high density city centre living is bound to be a boon!

2. As I understand it there is no M8 city centre motorway equivalent so living in a city centre flat is appealing to families as a commute into the city from the burbs is relatively slow. (feel free to correct me if I am wrong)Hence the boom in this type of development.

3. They gotten the base of towers right by clustering town houses around them, with community and leisure facilities and also having active frontages i.e. shops etc giving life and activity to the bases. That way they don't kill the areas they are incorporated into.

4. Their city centre population has expanded enormously on the back of this leading to restaurants, bars, cafe, a real 24 hour city centre.

Sounds like a great place to me!

You can get close to the city centre on highway 99, but it's stops south of the city centre. Trans-Canada Highway runs north in North Vancouver, but again it's not the M8 by any stretch of the imagination. Also there's huge developments in Richmond, Surrey and beyond to the south, and as the highways haven't been upgraded there are some big bottlenecks on the H99, especially on one of the bridges when its only two lanes.

Downtown area is very walkable from end to end - approx 20 minutes or so so much easier to commute by foot and parking in the west end of downtown is relatively easy if you're a resident and have a permit - we usually always got parked outside our appartment when we were there. Not like London or Brighton or parts of Glasgow.

As promised, a few pics from Vancouver as to how it should be done. Notice that none of these buildings are really that tall, and are certainly not out of reach for a city the size of Glasgow.

Also note how most of them meet the street - very simply and without fuss, showing that it doesnt have to be too complicated to still work very well:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/vanthread.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/Vancouver008.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/Vancouver005.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/Vancouver006.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/Vancouver003.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/Vancouver007.jpg

A standard office block meeting the street:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/Vancouver011.jpg

A lot of the buildings have slightly more imaginative stuff around or attached to the bottom of them:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/Vancouver002.jpg

And all of this adds up to an extremely interesting, varied and clean skyline that looks positively breathtaking from almost any angle: (notice Elphinstone's lookalike standing right in the middle of it all)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/10977579_bfd7661635_o.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/van28.jpg

That is how it is done guys. Glasgow should take note, because what I have shown (apart from the skyline picture) is possible, if the city gets its act together.

I totally agree with you. Im so jealous of cities like that. I think that its not old historic buildings that really attract people to places anymore, I think modern buildings are just as exciting. I was in Glasgow on Saturday, and thought if they were to build skyscrapers dont you think Tradeston would be a great place? Looking right over, it would look fantastic. anyone agree?

There are plans for some tall buildings in Tradestone, but I think the north bank of the Clyde should be worked on properly first. Custom house quay will provide some height - but I think 24 storys should be about the limit around the water from for now.


The prime skyscraper sites are definately the Charing Cross area, the Broomielaw area (near the kingston bridge where the dandara 50 story proposals are), and possibly the banks of the clyde in the city centre.

You are right though Jimbob - a lot of people much prefer modern skyscrapers to older buildings, but in Glasgows case it is important to strike the right balance, as Glasgow has so many incredible Victorian buildings that it would be a crime to squander them.

A cluster in Charing Cross is what we are all hoping for... hopefully it wont be too far away.....

Oh..I didnt realise there was a height limit on the waterfront.
Im sure theres a height rule in Edinburgh, so that there is no obstruction of the castle, thats why I think the major "tall" buildings are proposed for the waterfront. I seen Tradeston, it dosent like there is very important buildings there, it looks quite abandoned..so I think the skys the limit.

I dont know about Charing X..I dont know if Ive visited there. Why do you all want skyscrapers in this area, isnt there a lot of old buildings there, with some people thinking modern skyscrapers wouldnt compliment if "ruin" the areas look?

There isnt really a height limit at the waterfront Jimbob, but I think anything over 25 storys right now would look a little out of place.

Tradestone is a disgrace - I'll take anything that will clear that part up right now lol. But it will be cleared up soon.


Charing Cross is the site of Elphinstone Place (440ft, 134m) and Elmbank Tower (352ft, 107.5m) and looks like this:

The red circle marks out charing cross and X marks the Elmbank tower site
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/CharingCross.jpg

The old building just out of shot to the left is getting demolished to make way for Elphinstone, Elmbank will be a wee bit further to the left of the picture.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/PC050103.jpg

Charing Cross is the bit where the M8 Motorway cuts through the city centre before going into a short tunnel. This is also a great shot of Glasgow from the air, btw. Shows you the "New York" style Grid system your mates were talking about.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/awesomeglasgow.jpg


So basically, in the Charing Cross area, there will be Elphinstone, Elmbank, the Hilton (240ft), and the possibility of three 50 story towers (570ft ish), plus a few more here and there. This could soon become one of the best skylines in the UK, as all the skyscrapers would be tightly massed into one area, and create a canyon effect over the M8, one of Europes busiest roads.

Oh..Well yeh I have been there. I didnt realise it was called Charing X. Thought it was just erm, St.Vincent Street.
Ok..when I was there. I wasnt sure what they were doing at the side of the old building, there was scafolding there, do you think that means that they will be taking it apart piece by piece?
Well..Glasgow would look amazing if these were all approved,
Elphinstone might well set way for a surge of skyscrapers in Glasgow, it would be great and I hope..the Glasgow public like the skyscraper.
I think..the buildings that are there already look quite packed in.
I really like the road beside Abbey and Hilton, Its so American.
and the M8 is just really great.

Ah, The Boy David, the first mention in a while of the three 50-story buildings. These caused a huge fuss here when first mentioned, but no-one seems to have found any further news about them - have they moved any further forward than being a pretty picture on Dandara's (?) website?

Ah, The Boy David, the first mention in a while of the three 50-story buildings. These caused a huge fuss here when first mentioned, but no-one seems to have found any further news about them - have they moved any further forward than being a pretty picture on Dandara's (?) website?
Alas nay, Kentigern, this still just looks like a bit of a pipe dream.

Problem is, the picture isnt even on their website as such - it's only part of a montage of projects in their online brochure :(

These towers are going to be a long time coming, if you ask me...


Yeah Jimbob that whole area is being considered by us as Charing Cross. Looks great doesnt it :) I know that striving to make our city a bit more American is not always a good thing, but that area could look pretty cool in 4 years time.

For pictures of the real cross part of Charing X, have a wee look in the Glasgow Photos thread, theres bound to be a few shots of the area in there aswell.

Great pictures david.

Something is being cooked up for Cheapside, something big. The announcement seems to have been delayed.

What with Elephanstone, Dixon St, and Custom House Quay all passed, , the face of Glasgow will be changed forever in the sky ... and I'm beginning to think the trend has now been set and provided Cheapside is good, it will probably get passed ... just need the cluster at Charing Cross to complete the skyline...

Found this on the web concerning Vancouver and thought it pertinent to this thread. Sorry its rather long but I thought it best to leave unedited. It's a speech to the Congress of New Urbanism by Larry Beasley who is Co-Director of Planning and Director of Current Planning for the City of Vancouver:

Larry Beasley’s Address to the
Congress of the New Urbanism
Chicago, June, 2004
Working with the Modernist Legacy – New Urbanism Vancouver Style

My thesis today is that Vancouver’s recent development, especially in the inner-city and surrounding neighbourhoods, offers a text-book case of the Charter of the New Urbanism.

But being a comparatively new city, its form and architectural expression is absolutely modern, absolutely of today – with a strict and clear differentiation between historic building types and fabric and new construction. It looks very little like the common (if caricatured) imagery of the New Urbanism.

And this, for today’s discussion, is its interest: a way of arranging and shaping the city that carries the New Urbanist torch proudly and a way of building that every day in every development pushes the bounds of modernism equally proudly.

So, that’s what I want to talk about. And as I do, I want to show you a barrage of images. What’s interesting is that almost everything I’m going to show you did not exist ten years ago. The fact is that Vancouver has been in a frenzied transformation and the results are very little like anything you’re going to see elsewhere in North America.

Now, I like to think this is the result of our will; but I have to admit, in part, it’s because of our circumstances. You see, we’re hemmed in – our region sits in a valley between mountains, ocean and the US border – and these limits are reinforced on the east with some of Canada’s best agricultural land, which we’ve chosen to protect through a strict Agricultural Land Reserve.

And, we’re also hemmed in at the metropolitan core. Our inner city sits on a peninsula surrounded by water on three sides like a moated medieval town. So with growth (which has been driven by massive immigration), there’s been an imperative to be compact; to be intense; to be mixed use; and to limit space dedicated to that huge land consumer, the automobile.

But, you know, there’s a strong thrust of human will here too. From the mid–70’s we took aggressive action to save our historic inner-city suburbs; and in the mid-80’s we took a leap of faith – counter to the urban experience of the day – by adopting and implementing what we now call our “living first” strategy for the downtown. This strategy has been shaped absolutely and profoundly by the principles of Jane Jacobs. It has been shaped by the principles of Smart Growth. But most of all, it has been shaped by the principles of the New Urbanism.

I’m talking about neighbourhoods with clear structure and identity; each with its commercial high street; each with lush open space and green linkages (especially the Seawall that ties everything and everyone together); each with a social mix, by income and household type (especially providing for families with children); each with its infrastructure of public facilities and services. We require the following amenities in every new neighbourhood of the city:

· parks;
· schools;
· community centres;
· child care facilities;
· library facilities;
· public walkways & bikeways; and
· public art.

I’m talking about very dense, mixed-use development, but with a diversity of building types and housing choices and all kinds of urban activity tigh together.

I’m talking about a movement system that acknowledges the car but limits it by allocating to it less street space (we like to say “congestion is our friend”) and requiring significantly less parking – providing much better, faster, safer and more fun ways to move around as alternatives (transit, bikes, even ferries – but especially walking as preferred modes).

I’m talking about a deep commitment to historic buildings and districts with strong incentives for preservation and reuse.

And I’m talking about a demand for sustainable development that gets stronger each year – green buildings, managing waste and water, alternative energy sources, urban agriculture.

Well, that’s the setup. To get right down to the issue for today, I want to focus in on the architecture: to try to answer the key question that has been posed – “what aspects of modernism does one carry on with when conceiving the city from New Urbanist principles?” Our experience offers two leads: the use of towers and the espousal of contemporary form and style. But in each case there is a dramatic transformation that we have
had to do to meet the kind of liveability and sustainability that Vancouverites demand.

Probably the iconic symbol of modernist architecture is the tower or highrise or skyscraper – whatever one chooses to call it. It’s a very useful form because it can carry a lot of density. In Vancouver, it’s a preferred form especially suitable to our situation, where people want to get up higher to connect to mountains and water. Even the Prince of Wales has said that towers are a uniquely compatible form for our particular natural setting.

But it can be an anonymous, inhuman form to live in and to be near. So we have tamed the tower.

We’ve tamed it by using a slender, point-block form, by having very small floorplates, and keeping buildings far apart for privacy and to preserve views. We’ve tamed it by carefully managing how it affects the magnificent view corridors across our inner city and how it affects shadowing and access to sun on the ground; and managing its collateral problems, like over-viewing or over- bearingness and especially transmission of noise. Special “neighbourhood areas of tranquility” have been designated to mitigate ambient noise in downtown residential areas. We’ve tamed it by placing it within a traditional urban structure of streets and open space that carefully conserves historic patterns and, in new areas, extends out organically and compatibly from the traditional patterns.

But mostly we’ve tamed the tower by augmenting it and integrating it with a wonderfully complex street-oriented built form within the first six floors of the ground.

Here we require strong street walls at the property line and continuous all along the sidewalk.

Here we bury the base of the tower so it hits the ground gently, almost disappearing from one’s grade-level perspective (floating out of consciousness).

Here we press for a plethora of detail and a pedestrian scaled architectural expression at grade, like doors and windows and stoops and steps and signage and lighting and caprices.

Here we domesticate the sidewalk with row houses or commercially energize the sidewalk with shop-houses.

Here we make the public realm our ally by lining the streets with double rows of trees and grass boulevards and special paving treatments of all kinds and public art of all kinds and people-friendly furnishings with universal accessibility.

Essentially, here within the first six floors, we create the fascinating, intricate urbanism that engenders a sense of place, compatibility for people, and memory.

Of course we continue to refine the tower-based formula. Some problems have become evident as we gain experience. There’s a sameness that can occur if you’re not careful – a project feel that is anathema to the incremental layering that we love in cities. So we’ve started looking at parcelization and differentiating guidelines and how architecture is commissioned to respond to this worry. There’s also a point at which urban saturation is reached – when there’s just too many towers. So we’re looking at when and how development management policy needs to change over time when enough is enough.

But the tower form can be miraculous if handled right, because it can be the economic driver that allows everything else to happen – from street energy, to construction quality to public amenities.

Now let’s turn to contemporary architectural expression and style. Most modern architects jealously protect their freedom of expression to design buildings and spaces that fit our time, that are suitable to the materials available to us and that satisfy program requirements that did not previously exist. That’s fine; but modern architecture has given us some real horror stories, so that many citizens no longer trust this modernist aesthetic that can be oppressive and very insensitive; and that can be more about the architect than about the community or more about the economics than about the results and certainly more about globalization than about local circumstances. So, in Vancouver, we’ve felt compelled to re-balance the inputs that create this modern architecture.

We’ve democratized the design process by bringing public and private designers together; making design resolution an imperative in our laws; and insisting on a strong citizen influence in design.

We’ve required high quality, durable materials that embellish the public realm with dignity and are suitable for urban uses – furthering our intent to domesticate the street.

We use landscape very strategically to soften and humanize the urban environment with colour and movement and scents and animal life, including wonderful private courtyard gardens.

We take every proposal through a review of suitability for children’s use and enhancement of on- and off-site safety and security through application of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.

And we’re very sceptical of those architectural gestures that are sometimes perpetrated on the public more for shock value than anything else, like blank walls and brutalistic treatments and austerity – instead, we insist on a wonderful intricacy of buildings along the street – making the buildings the setting for the public realm of the street rather than the other way around.

Again, this effort is not without its problems – and these remain our day-to-day challenge.

Some people say these public objectives put the architect in a straitjacket that limits extraordinary design, so we’re searching for ways to facilitate great architecture while not, by accident, opening the door for abuse of the commonweal.

Some worry that our requirements shift the investment from private areas in a building that serve user needs to the public face that contributes to the street. So we’re getting more deeply into project economics to make sure a balance is achieved.

There’s no doubt that in Vancouver, which is an amalgam of people and attitudes from all over the world, modernist architectural expression and style will be preferred by consumers and designers. The aesthetic systems of the past just don’t resonate for us – so we have to make modernism work and we have to cast it with collective as well as individual responsibility.

Well, there’s a lot of theory and a lot of experimentation in what I’ve shown you today and you can read much more about it in the handouts I’ve brought along. I contend that it’s right in the mainstream of the New Urbanism. But does it work? Is it creating the kind of place that people want to live in? Can it entice people from the suburbs?

The answer, with over a decade and a half under our belt, is most definitely yes. We are the fastest growing residential downtown in North America with over 40,000 people having moved downtown within 10 years (that makes over 80,000 residents downtown, with capacity to 110,000 or more).

And we’re having a baby boom downtown. Right now we have more children in the inner city than in a typical nearby suburban neighbourhood. Children are everywhere in the public environment of Downtown Vancouver. It’s a joy to see.

Yet we also have less cars commuting into the city every day than 10 years ago; and over 60% of all downtown trips are now by transit, bike or on foot. Our new downtown image and “living first” strategy is very popular with our citizens.

And maybe that’s the acid test. If citizens love their city – if it’s the place they prefer to be (to live and work and meet one another) - then our brand of the New Urbanism has true staying power. And for Vancouver, it will be the kind of urbanism that we all want in the future.

Its strange.

Im sure if I read that without having been to Vancouver I would be thinking that Larry Beasley is full of shit.

But he is not. Vancouver is as he describes it. They have done a remarkable job constructing their downtown area.

Every city in the World could learn something from them. Including us.


Thanks for posting the article Gweilo! You've been awful quiet recently, have you not? And where's Mr Dunlop? He hasnt frequented these parts in ages!

When I first read about New Urbanism it initially seemed like a good idea. Until I realised that in practical terms it is often just car dependent suburbia in pseudo vernacular styles. See Seaside (Florida).

The above, however, seems to make a lot of sense, and should be shows what New Urbanism could be.

Im talking about

To me new urbanism is Poundbury or Forthside. People looking to the past for solutions. vancouver seems to be coming up with answers of its own.

For me this is the problem,
and keeping buildings far apart for privacy and to preserve views.

If suburban houses can be built back to back, if tenements can eyeball each other across a street, why then should towers be solitary affairs? I really dislike the gap toothed smile of developments. For me true urbanism is a mash of towers ala NY.

I do think high rise living can be fraught with danger... low quality builds, limited family appeaL.. certainly in Glasgow towers will be the icing on the cake, not primary urban fabric. For that reason alone I'm unsure exactly what to take home from Vancouver. Skyscrapers are at their most succesfull as hotels/offices or mixed use schemes, I do actually think the trusty tenement plus townhomes and terraces to be the urban residential ideal at the end of the day (shock).

MY ideal city would be one of a dense cluster of offices/retail/residential at the core immediately dropping off to 4 storey tenements beyond peppered with town homes. Ornamental talls would then denote transport interchanges, retail, urban centres outwith the core.

Basically, ideally, I don't think we should be building mid rises.

To me new urbanism is Poundbury or Forthside. People looking to the past for solutions.

I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at the past for solutions. People have been living in cities - often great cities - for thousands of years. Just to discard knowledge is a very bad idea. When Matthew and Spence were throwing up tower blocks in the Gorbals, it wasn't as many people seem to think, out of spite. They genuinely were trying to improve the world (I've had many arguments with people about this, who try to suggest, without any knowledge of recent history, that the architect were evil.) The complete disregard of history was utopian in ideals, and completely new, but largely a failure. Cities should be built for people, and the way that people interact doesn't change as quickly as building techniques, fashions and styles do. There is nothing wrong with looking back on the past - seeing what has worked - and trying to learn from it and improve upon it. That's what I think New Urbanism could be.

The trouble is when you get architects such as Robert Adam (the 20th C hack, not the 18th C genius) or Leon Krier trying to pretend that we still live in a past era. Hence the Western Breakwater of Forthside or Poundbury.

I was trying to focus more on Vancouver than New Urbanism but if it provokes debate on that too that is all and good. I would have been inclined to agree with you about aspects of New Urbanism maccoinnich. Its association with a revival of classicism (especially when it turns out to be a debasd surburban vision) has kind of unfairly allowed its critics to place it in an intellectual cul de sac. Being lumped in with the likes of Quinlan Terry, Robert Adam et al does it no favours. I'm more interested in a true understanding of how classicism worked / works as a language, a pattern, and an order rather than merely aping it's forms in the naive hope that by doing so somehow the urbanism of the great cities of the past will rub off on the ones of the future (actually if you want a laugh go and have a look at Robert Adam's masterplan for Leith Harbour and how the geometry of his sweeping crescent around the central park is resolved where it meets the existing roads on the site. The 18th century architects who laid out the New town would be spinning in their graves if they saw that) In fact if you forget about that whole nostalgic aspect and focus on the how people actually interact with their physical environment and how cities really do work then there is a lot there that is of merit.

Thanks for posting the article Gweilo! You've been awful quiet recently, have you not? And where's Mr Dunlop? He hasnt frequented these parts in ages!

In answer to your query Boy David I'm rather snowed under at work at the moment so I'm a bit time poor! It's not that I've lost interest! Sometimes I deliberately avoid posting as I know if I do I'll get sucked into a debate, when I don't have the time to give an issue proper consideration.

Here is my 5 cents on the original quesion here. 3rd entry along

http://www.geocities.com/lyndastevens/blog.html

I rather gather from having corresponded from someone still living on the estate in Coventry where I used to live, who was campaigning to have the demolitions stopped, that the attitude towards the people living in the flats was they would all be grateful to be ferried away from these high-rise hells. But it seems, that was not necessarily always the case.

It is still the saddest news I have heard about the UK since leaving it all of 12 years ago, now. It is less easy to compalin abou the ugliness of tower blocks when you have actually lived inside one and actually did enjpy the lightness and space of them. As I di now, in my current tower block.

I wasn't sure where to best post, but this old thread seemed appropriate given the sad history of the decline of the Red Road high flats.

I learned some surprising additional things at today’s presentation on the Red Road demolition programme at the GHA Academy (a first class facility by the way).

SAFEDEM demolition experts faced quite a challenge, because they found that the steel, and the steel structure, are unique to the Red Road scheme. They found a gauge, and a variety of gauges, that they had not come across before anywhere in the world – neither metric nor imperial! They traced the origins of the steel to the old Dalziel Works. That did bring home to me how Scotland no longer has the steel production capacity to meet the needs of even a single scheme like this one (and compare that to what’s going eslwhere on in a single city the likes of Shanghai today).

The SAFEDEM experts reckon that it was a case of the Red Road design and structure being adapted to what steel was available in Scotland at the time.

The awful asbestos monster was touched on, of course. Seems that outside of the old USSR, the Red Road structures were the only such residential development with purely asbestos external cladding (why does that sound reminiscent of the old Glasgow Corporation?).

Aside of the many technical construction matters, there was a quite superb presentation on GHA and Glasgow Life’s ‘Red Road Cultural Project’. I could go on and on (for example, about former resident Joe’s film, ‘In the Shadow of the Beast’, or about the underground Bingo hall!), But instead, I recommend that you visit the various relevant websites like this (www.redroaddemolition.co.uk) or this (www.redroadflats.co.uk)

Memorable stuff, but very painful in parts with the sad realisation of the extremity and waste of the grand delusions of the entire Red Road concept… and for followers of this board, perhaps a cautionary tale about high rise residential development?