Press Release

3Oth November 2005

gm+ad

Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop Architects have been appointed for the detailed design of a mixed development of two city blocks centred on Cheapside Street in Glasgow. It is a high profile commission for one of the city's most important and strategic sites, on the north bank of the Clyde immediately west of the Kingston Bridge.

" As a gateway to the city" says Gordon Murray, " it will be the first major development that visitors arriving from the airport will see on entering the centre........... so it has to be exceptional"

"It will be a complex mix of residential, retail and commercial buildings " adds Alan Dunlop. "At present we are working with our clients and the city to get the density, mix and height absolutely right".

It is envisaged that Detailed Planning Consent will be sought in the Spring following the model of the Masterplan approval obtained for the site in 2003.

gm+ad are currently on site with Glasgow Harbour phase 2 for Dandara Ltd . The Cheapside Street project will be for the same clients .

The mouth waters! :)

Such an outstanding area to build something memorable and im sure it will be Alan, looking forward to seeing this!

Wonderful news Alan!! i knew you would get the Scheme i know that its been kept Under wraps for a while and there was reasons for it ?

Can i ask why all the secrecy over the last 2 years or so?

Will the development be based on your previous form factor or a completely new concept layout ?

Mo.

I'm excited :)

It's a completely new concept layout, so non of the other images you have Mo in your extensive archive collection are relevant.

Why all the secrecy? It's a sensitive site, our clients and gm+ad want to do a brilliant scheme...........don't want anyone going off half cocked or being deliberatly objectionable, remember Red Road, when anyone with half an eye open could see the comparison was nothing like GH2 ..........we'll release images when they're right

Great stuff Alan I am very happy that a Glasgow firm has got this important strategic site. Congratulations and well done :)

Is a tower still planned for the edge of Cheapside st like in the old plan ?

Please god dont make it look anything like Glasgow Harbour. Two 40+ storey towers must be built! The sites so prominent - the gateway to the heart of a great city, and the location is so begging for high-rise. No towers there and we can forget trying to keep up with even Leeds and Liverpool in the scraper stakes. I'll be absolutely gutted if its some awful rubbish similar to GH2 or Lancefield Quay thats put there - cant help thinking it will be though. Was looking at the photos of Holloway Circus tower and my god its stunning two of those but at least a hundred feet higher please!

Wait and see,mate.....wait and see :)

Hmmm I sense some promise in the air! Sorry to harp on sometimes but seeing the way Manchester is going I just want some biggies so bad! That site is perfect for skyscraspers, its got it all, one of the finest locations in U.K I reckon. It will break my heart if we dont get some real beasts there.

sorry, the wait and see message is for Mo, Boards...you can fuck off. :)

you can fuck off.

C'mon Alan thats no very nice.


:laugh::hilarious :rofl:

Two 40+ storey towers must be built! The sites so prominent - the gateway to the heart of a great city, and the location is so begging for high-rise. No towers there and we can forget trying to keep up with even Leeds and Liverpool in the scraper stakes

This is true. We're rapidly looking a bit on the small side...

I await with anticipation.

Minutes to the previous 2003 application to Cheapside st.

I imagine there will be lots of alterations to the new proposals in time to come.

Fine detail on the GCC Link.


http://www.glasgowcitycouncil.co.uk/committee_minutes/public/extdocviewtop.asp?CID=1646&DATE=27/11/2003&TIME=13:00&DAY=&PAGE=1&STATE=Live&FILE=Documents/Live/Development%20and%20Regeneration%20Services%20Committee/20035/1300_27_11_2003_1646_Report_item%2015b.pdf&DocId=7225&Index=d%3a%5cdtsearch%5cindexes%5cLive&HitCount=7&hits=28+12c+15d+221+2f4+330+379+

Glasgow City Council
Development and Regeneration Services Committee
Report by Director of Development and Regeneration Services
Contact: Iain Mason Ext: 76019
Implementation of City Plan: Masterplan for Cheapside Street

Purpose of Report:
To advise committee of a Masterplan proposal for a mixed-use development comprising
residential, commercial, hotel and associated parking by Clydeport Ltd.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
1. The Committee supports the broad range and distribution of land use(s) shown in the
Masterplan with the proviso that the flooding and environmental issues, transportation and
land use matters can be capably addressed at the later detailed application stage(s): and
2. The Committee offers advice to the applicants, reflecting the various issues raised in the body
of the report.

The Site
1.1. At present the site comprises of two street blocks each of which have a number of
uses on them. At the northern most part of the block between Warroch Street and
Cheapside Street lies a Chinese Restaurant, a Children’s Nursery, a small number of
tenemental style properties, with the remainder of the block in commercial use including
Class 4, Class 5 units and a Car Hire premises. The other block which lies between
the Kingston Bridge, Piccadilly Street, and Cheapside Street has at its northern most
part an area of landscaping. The mid section has a number of Class 4 and Class 5 units,
at the southern end there is a former Council-owned Homeless Persons Hostel and a
Public House. The site is generally of an unattractive appearance and uninviting with the
elevated road section of the Kingston Bridge over-dominating the blocks. The buildings
are of a variety of types, style and materials, have no coherence and do not relate well to
the street.
1.2 The site historically has had a number of uses many of which related to the industrial
history of the area and its relationship with the Clyde as a working river. Given the history,
there is a probability that the site would be subject to environmental problems such as
contamination and possible flooding/inundation problems. The proximity to the elevated
road and Kingston Bridge raises the issue of air quality and traffic noise.
2. THE MASTERPLAN PROPOSAL
2.1 At its meeting, on 5 March 2003, the Development and Regeneration Services (Property)
Sub-Committee approved the disposal of the Council’s interest in the subjects at
Cheapside Street/Warroch Street through a joint development agreement with Ensenada
Properties (a subsidiary of Clydeport plc) for a mixed residential and commercial
development.
2.2 The proposal has undergone a series of discussions and amendments, with additional
information submitted to address the concerns of contamination, inundation, air quality and
traffic issues. The general approach is to give coherence to the area with increased
permeability through the site and bring life and activity back into the area. The Masterplan
has been prepared on behalf of Clydeport. The area covered by the masterplan was
extended to include, for indicative purposes, the northern most part of blocks, ie the
existing residential properties, restaurant, nursery and landscaped area.
2.3 The Masterplan shows a mixture of uses with commercial/office space, residential units
and a hotel. The proposals would build on, and re-enforce, the existing street pattern
while introducing new east/west routes offering greater permeability. The plan shows
1633 square metres of commercial office space 350 square metres of retail space, 340 flats
and 200 bed hotel (excluding the indicative areas to the north)

sorry, the wait and see message is for Mo, Boards...you can fuck off. :)

Haha what a bitch! You can go fuck yourself too ya prick.

what, no smiley.............. that's a bit much :)

:)

better.......... but your still an arse

Why would that be? Not a fan of a certain development the reason?

Mmmmm...Do you have a Structural Engineer for the Cheapside Street Development? Trying to think of a good Glasgow based one................................still thinking.

Nah i give up.

If anyone has ever came across one recently in Glasgow that is capable of taking on some of the structures that are proposed then i'll spread tuna and mayo on my hard hat and eat it :bash:.

what about onions?

on the hard hat....not as engineers

Nah, Onions have the same effect as Structural Engineers, they give me indegestion and make my eyes water every time i look at one.

With hindsight there are a couple (literally a couple) of good Engineers in Glasgow, but generally they are the cross that Builders and i believe Architects on many occasions have to carry.

How many projects have you been involved in where the Structural Steelwork Sub Contractor is supposed to design the beam / column connections but ends up re-designing the whole steel frame because the original frame has more joints in it than an Australian back-packer?

Nah, Onions have the same effect as Structural Engineers, they give me indegestion and make my eyes water every time i look at one.

A classic comparison, matey - I like it :)


-------


But Alan! What a tease! You can't just tell us this and then not give us any details (well obviously you can - but hey!..). This is really interesting though - will this be the project that truely establishes gm+ad on an international stage? I reckon so, especially off the back of the superb (what are you talking about Boards?!) Glasgow Harbour Phase 2. Make Cheapside a good'un mate - you know what you have to do :happy:


That aside, I don't suppose you can give us any more basic details; a time frame for example? Even for the images? Totally understand if you've got to keep everything under-raps - you've done a good job so far!


Very interesting.

As someone considering going in to Building Services Engineering, I'd be interested to see how much disdain architects garner for them!

We're all entitled to our opinion David, I simply dont like the five residential blocks in the GH2 plans simple as. I wouldnt like to see something similar to them next to the bridge. I suppose if I'd realised that geezer was in on them then I'd have been more tactful. Couldnt give a fuck now though.

The Cheapside st site as it is presently.

What is happening on the rear end of the site Alan
(edge of Clydeside Expressway)? have plans been changed on this or does it extend futher from the Hatched area on the existing plan ?

Sorry but my curiousity is getting the better of me :)


http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/6898/cheapside3ja.jpg

Sorry i know these images are history But i couldnt resist putting these images here too. :)

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6360/cheapsideproposals2qr.jpg

We're all entitled to our opinion David, I simply dont like the five residential blocks in the GH2 plans simple as. I wouldnt like to see something similar to them next to the bridge. I suppose if I'd realised that geezer was in on them then I'd have been more tactful. Couldnt give a fuck now though.
Acch fair enough - personally I think they are of a very high standard, but your quite right - everyone is entitled to their own opinion :)

lol... I think Alan's going to regret ever making that press release because of us!

Mo, I was looking at your montage and noticed one of the proposals involved development right up to the edge of the on-ramp - I believe there was a wedge-shaped block proposed for that site. Obviously that's probably now going to change, but I reckon that site is now included in the larger scheme.

As for timeframe - well, planning is expected in Spring 2006, so I'd expect the first detailed pictures around Feb/March.

It's good to see that Dandara are behind it - remember their 3 50-storey towers? Although the ifnal scheme is likely to be completely different (as said by Alan himself), they do indicate that Danara want something special for this site. And we know that gm+ad rarely fail to deliver (though I must say, my uneducated opinion is that GH Phase 2 is a bit of a disappointment).

It's so funny to see everyone jumping up and down with excitement at this! I was grinning broadly as I first read Alan's post, then all the replies. Hurrah!

Cheapside will fail if nothing is done about the motorway undercroft, currently a dank unlit pit a mockery of "city of light". I know there are plans for the station but drastic surgery is required, not a cosmetic makeover.

I agree towers are better back from the river in general, but something of exceptional design on the riverbank would work, Latis for instance. For me the site begs for a twin tower approach either side of the motorway, portals to the city centre. I'll confess being disappointed at anything less than 30 floors, but they're not short of vacant ground to build upon.

yeah it's great to see a new post gather so much interest so quickly - am well excited about what may be planned for this. the glasgow forum went dead for a while but over the last few days has exploded back into action - great news. good luck with this project alan!

------------------------------
p.s. guys might be in glasgow this sat - uni are offering a £10 return bus to edinburgh for day leaving at 6.30am! if we're there so early i might catch a bus across if i can persuade some mates to come. if i do i'll post some pictures of my shenanigans. it'll be my 7th time in scotland this year - you know that's dedication

there is nothing to show you yet lads, we're analysing what the site can take, massing, sun path, density, balance of commercial against residential, car parking ratios, site positives and negatives, positioning of high buildings , low buildings, physical impact, materials, views and so on. It's a very sensitive site and has to be handled appropriately.

If I was to post our models, images and work done to date you'd learn nothing and I'd run the risk of another GH2 misdirection, everyone including me would get pissed off.

I'll post when I can.

Wish those critics of GH2 would take the time to see what we're doing and why and not just knee jerk. Come back to me with some objective comment based on an analysis of the problem and solution, until then fuck off. If you do I'll respond in the best way I can, take you seriously

This is an architectural forum not the x factor

Cheapside Street is long North South, GH2 is long West East, you know on a very basic level :)

Cheapside will fail if nothing is done about the motorway undercroft, currently a dank unlit pit a mockery of "city of light".

So right bout the underside of the M8 gleegie it is very unimaginative and bleak under there as you say,but then again what else could you do under there other than a continuation of a light up simmilar to the underside of the Kingston bridge.

Anyone got any existing images of Cheapside as it is? its quite a bleak and dismal site to say the least at present.

I think i will nip down and catch a few images of the place in the near future.

:nono:
I agree towers are better back from the river in general, but something of exceptional design on the riverbank would work, Latis for instance. For me the site begs for a twin tower approach either side of the motorway, portals to the city centre.....

You been watching Metropolis again? :)

unfortunately gleegie the site does'nt stretch to the other side of the motorway.

Portal is a nice idea, but not workable

lol... I think Alan's going to regret ever making that press release because of us!

It's so funny to see everyone jumping up and down with excitement at this! I was grinning broadly as I first read Alan's post, then all the replies. Hurrah!
Hehe the enthusiasm is what I love about this place - it's almost emphatic at some points, but it's bloody great :happy:


Disappointed to hear that the plot doesn't encompass both sides of the Kingston, but hey ho...


Well Alan best of luck to you and your team, be sure we are amoungst the first to know when the designs are released!

With due respect Alan, I'm not an architect, and nor are most of the people who interact with the buildings and environments that architects have the privilege of creating for us.

That means that architecture has to be able to relate to the person on the street, not just to people who have the insight and ability to appreciate good work. I'm just an average Joe - I did state that my opinion is an uneducated one. And on a very basic, lazy, "X factor" level, I find the scheme OK, but not particularly great. I’m sure there’s sound reasoning behind everything you’ve done – but that doesn’t stop me from looking at the renders and drawing my own basic conclusions.

I make no apologies for holding such a line - I don't believe I should need to come up with an architectural essay on why I don't particularly love the scheme. Nor should you be telling me to fuck off! :)

Wish those critics of GH2 would take the time to see what we're doing and why and not just knee jerk. Come back to me with some objective comment based on an analysis of the problem and solution, until then fuck off. If you do I'll respond in the best way I can, take you seriously

This is an architectural forum not the x factor



I think your attitude and that of the other are very poor. Both of you actually telling someone who dares say they dont like your design to fuck off. So this is an architectural forum so you think that anyone who isnt an architect isnt entitled to their own opinion? As for the x factor jibe do you solely design your building for the benefit of other architects and those with associated knowledge? I thought these buildings were for the general public - the man on the street i.e a punter like me - should we all fuck off? Why dont you put a sign on the sales office when it opens saying 'if you dont like this place fuck off' ? Surely you like the way some cars look for example and dislike the look of others? I'm suprised how seriously you have appeared to taken comments made. I have also enjoyed the easy going relaxed banter on this forum. Very strange.

Lol was typing my reply at the same time you were Chief. They were telling me to fuck off mainly dont know if they meant you. How professional of both of the architects to tell me to fuck off on a public forum. Very touchy I wonder why?

And I thought people only hated me :lol:

Thought I'd take the heat off you for a while Vlad! :)

:okay:

They were telling me to fuck off mainly dont know if they meant you. How professional of both of the architects to tell me to fuck off on a public forum. Very touchy I wonder why?


Both ?Alan are you schizophrenic ?

grrroooaaann

Boards, must I spell this out for you. If you want to engage me in conversation then you must use your grey cells, it's only fair.

A lot of hard work and by many committed people goes into a project like GH2. Whether you like it or not, and it's ok by me that you don't, it's a very considered proposal, so to give a primary 4, I like this, don't like that reaction is not an opinion it's a lame, ill informed response.

"Alan are you schizophrenic ?' of course, isn't everyone?

"Alan are you schizophrenic ?' of course, isn't everyone?

Hyde in the morning and jekyll @ night or vice versa ?

didn't you know?

gordon murray and alan dunlop are actually the same person.

and by the way:



FUCK YOU ALL!:wave:

didn't you know?

gordon murray and alan dunlop are actually the same person.

and by the way:



FUCK YOU ALL!:wave:

Yes please with a couple of cherries on top for me, preferly by a big buxom wumin :)

Good Morning to you too, chaps :happy:

Strange thread, this. Starts with the great news that Cheapside Street is alive, and turns into everyone telling each other where to go.

I love it - only in Glasgow..... :)


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


I reckon one 30 story tower surrounded by a few midrise and lowrise buildings - I can't see it getting much taller than that. Would love a spire of some sort on it though :)

Yes indeed, wha's like us............though as usual Spacey did take things too far, the idea that Gordon Murray and I are the same person is plainly rediculous.........but you never see Gordon and George Clooney or Alan Dunlop and Ewan McGregor together........think on that.

I know david.. its that Alan one that causes it all, cant take him anywhere :laugh: would cause a riot in an empty room so he would ;)

and anyway just chill out all you guys oot there cheapside is great for the city, and i will say this although GH2 seems to most of you as uninviting and prehistoric you will eat your words when its complete the city would never have let it go ahead if they felt the scheme was going backwards. :)

Have a very good day all of you.

"uninviting and prehistoric" ......awe hey, don't you bloody start :)

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/GLASGOWMAN/GH2.jpg


Is this GH2 then? Is this what certain folk are being a bit negative about? If you told me 15 - 20 years ago that Glasgow would be getting such a Development in that location i would have told you that you were mad.

Personally i like it. It looks good. I can just imagine it, flying into Glasgow Airport. The city needs more of this. Credit to the developer also for taking a long term veiw and investing enormous sums of money in the city.

I was a wee bit sceptical initially about River Heights because i am not a particular fan of Terracotta Rainscreen Tiles, but i reckon that building is presently about the best bit of residential architecture on that stretch of the Clyde.

The point i am making is guys is do not be too definite in your pre-judgement of a development until you see it taking shape. Computer generated images are one thing, but until you see the actual cladding materials going on the frame then you form your final judgement.

As for Cheapside Street, it has been nothing but derelict - industrial - derelict for the last 250 years as business moved in and out. How can you give opinion on Going..Mad's development until they release the images in any event.

Feck a Builder defending an Architect.....what next.

Quite right Socceroo.

Good to see we have a builder on the forums now aswell - it's all been a little one-sided here so far ;)

Im a fan of GH2, I like the angular design because if there is one thing I hate its buildings that are far too curved and rounded. This will look good, tasteful and will fit in with the other high rises in the city and not look like an outrageous fashion statement.

Glad we're all in agreement now guys.

Because anyone looking in on this forum would think we're all nuts telling each other to fuck off whilst we argue about the fact that someone dare to invest a couple of hundred million quid in a derelict part of our city.

How dare they! :)

Need to go now time to phone the Structural Engineer and interrupt his lunch. Time to give the bugger indegestion.

Interesting thread guys. V. combative!

Good for you that managed to oust Ian Simpson (I am correct aren't I? He did win the competition?) Alan. Much as I think Simpson's work is interesting I'd much rather local talent was promoted thanks. I had hoped the site would stretch both sides of the bridge as a gateway feature for the City centre would have looked V dramatic (Personally I'd have liked something along the lines of Spielberg's decidely Kubrick influenced off shore Brothel in 'AI'. Would have looked tres cool but that's me campy bastard at heart) but anyway...

I've have also heard over the rumour mill that there is a proposal for quite a tall tower on the Broomielaw side of the bridge but haven't seen any images, don't know who is behind it, or if it is merely someone flying a kite.

As Gleegie says its the area under the Kingston Bridge and the M8 that's the problem in this area. I actually think that it could be a real asset for Glasgow. Both architecturally and urbanistically it may be brutal just now but it has real potential. It needs populated by both people and businesses to activate it. Can't see the private sector alone solving this. Will need input from the city and the pubilc sector. However, once the bridge from Springfield Quay is built it makes sense to encourage pedestrian flow between the entertainment complex here and the pubs and clubs at Charing cross. A night market maybe?

Oh and welcome to the forum soccerro. I've enjoyed your posts on Hidden Glasgow. You are admirably well informed.

"Spielberg's decidely Kubrick influenced off shore Brothel in 'AI'"

Aww hell........ how did you find out. Only it's in copper!

Anyhow, the terracotta in River Heights seems to excercise a lot of people because its a well use and abused "trendy" material. However, I don't have a problem with using a well tried material if it's appropriate for the job.

Remember, we started River Heights before GH2 was even thought of, and the Granaries were still there. It's a material which is warm, tactile and it's colour is not unlike that of the brick built warehouses that were once on the Clyde. River Heights has for us a scale and mass which is resonant of those warehouses, therefor it is appropriate to Glasgow....more than anything that is currently built down there.

gweilo the campy bastard.

love it. ;)

tell you, this thread is like the gordon street taxi queue.

Yeah, maybe I should have been clearer. I did consider saying this earlier. From the drawings, I like the fact that the buildings have a 'quality' look about them, and are different from most other developments we've seen recently. I guess what I don't like is the similarity and angularity of all the blocks... but that's a very personal, subjective opinion. And I agree with Socceroo in that I'm sure once these buildings are finally up and I can see them in the flesh, I'll come to quite like them.

Alan - I've tried to be respectful in giving my opnions, and to be honest I find it admirable that you feel so strongly about the work your firm puts in to its projects.

Anyway what do I know - I'm just an engineer!

"tell you, this thread is like the gordon street taxi queue" ha ha ha ha ha.

"uninviting and prehistoric" ......awe hey, don't you bloody start :)

Hee hee i knew that would get to you alan .

just wait and see like you say big man.:)

I believe two 40 stories skyscrapers will look good in the area.And than have the shops and that, mayge some 10 story towers with it. Great thing for Glasgow.

Can't we all kiss and make up? (and not the Glasgow kiss variety).

I'm sure you all are nice people in general, and each (however good or bad their writing comments may or may not be) we don't need to go down to bitching profanity. It's not worth it.

Not every scheme everyone will like - we'll who'd like to be perfect all the time? How can you beat perfect next time? But there's no need to go swearing off : ) or no :) .

If you want to take it out against each other may I suggest the manchester forum (lol) or maybe a game of Doom 2? Take out your agression somewhere else.


Personally Alan I hope you do a stunning job at cheapside, and, as it's the perfect location for towers (and I beleive this forum is all in favour of good towers!) that it gives Glasgow a project to be a world-famous project for both you and Glasgow as a whole ....

PS Any change of going for the world record Alan? Or a couple of CN Towers and a Empire State? lol

yes indeed, resist......the forum needed livening up but as usual, Boards, Spacey, Mo, Vlad , David, Chief and Gweilo took it too far, whadyamean "local talent".

Imagine being censored on an architecture forum, like being chucked out of a curry house for being drunk, almost impossible.........get a grip in future lads.

Back to the drawing board. Yes your right , the area under the bridge could be spectacular, cathedral like, Gweilo and Gleegie but it needs public as well as private investment to make it work .Planning gain alone just won't do it justice.

Yes, that is clever socceroo ...a football playing kangeroo on a public forum.......cool mate, cool

Yeah, I totally took it too far man. Telling people to f off for stating their opinions. What WAS I thinking? :bash: :)

yes indeed, resist......the forum needed livening up but as usual, Boards, Spacey, Mo, Vlad , David, Chief and Gweilo took it too far

Wisnae us > :cucumber: :booze: :cool: :nuts: :wave: :bash: it wis him > :bowtie:

Wisnae us > :cucumber: :booze: :cool: :nuts: :wave: :bash: it wis him > :bowtie:
Lovely collection there Mo :okay:

Alan what are you talking about? ;)

The day this forum gets dumbed down is the day the world is finally destroyed by that damn Vogon Construction Fleet (was the film as good as the book?)


Seriously though, this is one of the most amusing, if not interesting threads we've had in ages.

I went down to Cheapside this afternoon while the sun shone breifly for an hour, had a wee walk about and took some pics.
I suspect a tower at the Copycat pub site maybe 30 to 40 floors at least and for skyline visual imapct from the M8.
The site is practicaly rectangular other than the tail curve at the north side of cheapside st where the offramp from M8 runs off to the clydeside expressway.
Mostly decanted 4 story tenemental build on the ex hostel all decanted and fenced off..further up mostly industrial units some vacated (75%) on both cheapside and warroch st.
some recently refurbed 3 story coucil tenemental blocks on cheapside st occupied at the moment, i imagine all will be decanted soon.
Look forward to site beig cleared and the new development springing up over the next few years. :)

http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/2675/cheapsidestmon6al.jpg

http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/8663/warrochstmon3sk.jpg

What do you mean "decanted", why would they recently refurbish the housing if they were going to pour everybody out? Sometimes this country makes no sense...

What do you mean "decanted", why would they recently refurbish the housing if they were going to pour everybody out? Sometimes this country makes no sense...

thats what i felt too Vlad why refurbish when the scheme is to be demolished, unless the refurb was done before the site was proposed for redevelopment i am not aware of that.

Looks like a very awkward site, but with the potential for something for very exciting to happen on it. We'll have to wait and see.

PS - Re GH2 - I like the repetitive variations in it. Compare it to the first phase, where every single building has a different shape, form, rhythm, whatever. One of the things that make vast areas of tenements so nice is that they are the same idea, carried on again and again, with subtle variations between blocks. Having a degree of homogeny doesn't make it boring.

PS - Re GH2 - I like the repetitive variations in it. Compare it to the first phase, where every single building has a different shape, form, rhythm, whatever. One of the things that make vast areas of tenements so nice is that they are the same idea, carried on again and again, with subtle variations between blocks. Having a degree of homogeny doesn't make it boring.

Just what I think of them, I hate too much irregularity. The celebrated grid pattern is a good symbol of Glasgows regular patterns.

M Riaz (or anyone else) - whose are the various deceased designs in your montage of 2 pages ago? Obviously, the ink drawings with the section through the Kingston Bridge are Alan's. Am I right in thinking the one with the angled recesses are Elder + Cannon? And whose are the McCommerzbank?

Maccoinnich your post has made me realise something:

unfortunately gleegie the site does'nt stretch to the other side of the motorway.
But in every single plan in those montages the Cheapside plot is on both sides of the Kingston, even gm+ad's. Why has this changed Alan?


Nice spot with the "McCommerzbank" by the way :)


And thanks for going down there and scouting out the place Mo - some serious dedication there, which is awesome :okay:

things have changed David that's why. You have to know how you put a strategy for a site together.....lot's of what if's are involved...what if the site adjacent becomes available, that kind of thing. Guess everyone was seduced by the portal idea.

Yes those are my drawings maccoinich, part of a massing study the other angled recessed tower(s) is by Elder and Cannon. Commerzbank was never a serious proposal, it's to give an idea of what the site could hold by using a precedent

M Riaz (or anyone else) - whose are the various deceased designs in your montage of 2 pages ago? Obviously, the ink drawings with the section through the Kingston Bridge are Alan's. Am I right in thinking the one with the angled recesses are Elder + Cannon? And whose are the McCommerzbank?

I believe Alan has answerd your Q's on Cheapsides previous defunct proposals Macconnich.

Elder and Cannon i hated.. and McCommerzbank... well thats right out of 25th century.. isnt it ? :)

Had a wee thought about the undercroft @ anderston the other day.
telly was shite so started to mess about with my CGI programe came up with this idea for the undercroft...Far fetched or what ??

The wasted space of undercrofts should be thought about and put to better use than what they are at present I think.
On the central reserve of the undercroft I felt this could be used as a good public space enclosed in massive glass panels with light projected images of different artwork.
The pillars also projected by light through out but each individual pillar with a different theme or textured in different marble material.:)



http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1804/ucmon7ey.jpg

very nice ideas, we're way off being specific about the undercroft Mo though.......... too busy trying to get a scheme that stacks up. A+DS have just reprted on our proposals I'm sure you could get the report if you're interested, though in truth it does'nt say much.

I'll email you seperately what you should do with your ideas. :)

Thanks for that Alan.

just a wee idea i had and thought i would share with the forum.

I have replied to your PM. :)

It's rude to whisper in public, you know. :)

Alan, ever thought about commemprating the Cheapside St disaster in your scheme? I know it's a bit morbid but still has resonance I think. There is a monument very similar to the cenotaph in the Necropolis for the victims?

Love the idea there Mo! Schizophrenia!

nothing personal chief, you have to be careful with sharing your ideas on a public forum because they can soon become someone else's ....anyway what I suggested might not work at all.

cheapside Street disaster?

Yeah, the bonded warehouse that formerly stood on the site went on fire in 1960 and at its peak 450 firemen from all over the Clyde Valley were engaged in fighting it. 14 firemen and 5 men from the Glasgow Salvage Corps were killed when the walls of the warehouse were blown out into Cheapside Street and Warroch Street simultaneously as a result of an explosion inside the building. I can tell you more if you're *interested.

The fire
http://www.theglasgowstory.com/images/TGSA01950_m.jpg

The Cortege
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/FoGN/cheapside/necropolis_cheapside_victims_1960.jpg

The Ceremony.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/FoGN/cheapside/necropolis_cheapside_victims_burial.jpg

The Lord Provost lays a wreath on thier monument every year I believe. God rest thier souls.

Here is an article from the Evening Times which is probably a good article to explain the outline of the event :

FIREFIGHTERS gathered at Glasgow's Necropolis to mark the 45th anniversary of the Cheapside Street whisky bond blast that claimed the lives of 19 men.

The tragedy, on March 28, 1960, is Britain's worst peace-time fire service disaster.

Firemen and salvagemen were responding to reports of smoke at a warehouse in Anderston, but as they arrived, a series of huge explosions tore the building apart, showering tonnes of masonry on to the street.

The men who died were buried under the rubble. The victims - 14 firemen and five men from Glasgow Salvage Corps - were later laid to rest at the fire service tomb at the Necropolis.

Joe Smith, 76, was one of just two salvagemen to survive the blast. Mr Smith said: "Coming here to mark the day is the least I can do - I've had 45 years more than the men who died."

Charlie McGrattan, Strathclyde Fire Brigade's senior divisional officer for Glasgow, performed a ceremonial salute and laid a wreath.

Publication date 29/03/05

We'll get everybody over to HG yet Crusty ;)

Hehehe ;) It's not about HG (altho please do go join!), it's about heritage in all senses. It's little things like this that endear you to a place and would certainly give a desolate area like that a footing Glasgow's collective psyche. Gives a little something back don't you think? :)


I also think Selfridges should seriously consider commemorating the birthplace of the firs Candian Prime Minister in thier scheme on Brunswick St... if it ever gets off the ground!

This is thier memorial
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/FoGN/cheapside/firefight.jpg

Good brian storming there Crusty,, would a fantastic theme for the cheapside undercroft, like you say a bit morbid, but i was thinking on happier themes.. good on you mate. :)

Interesting photographs there Crusty of a very sad event in the history of the City. I recall my parents telling me about it when i was younger.

I also remember seeing photographs of the funeral cortege driving up the High Street with tens of thousands of Glaswegians lining the streets to pay their respects.

Yeah, I'm sure I have that pic somewhere Socceroo... I really need to tidy up this hard drive! Anyway, the following images of carnage and destruction are courtesy of The Glasgow Story(.com):

http://www.theglasgowstory.com/images/TGSA01954.jpg
http://www.theglasgowstory.com/images/TGSA01951.jpg
http://www.theglasgowstory.com/images/TGSA01953.jpg
http://www.theglasgowstory.com/images/TGSA01952.jpg

Mo... I wasn't even thinking of the undercroft per say, more something on the new build, even just a plaque or commemorative marker stone. You're idea's much funkier.... you could combine the two but I'm not sure how well recieved projected images such as those above would be recieved.

What a nice subject eh? Sorry if I've put your day on a downer :)

Alan, didn't mean nothing by it... was just stirring up trouble.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/GLASGOWMAN/02493079.jpg

Found one of the Photo's i recalled seeing. This one is the parade of Firemen, apparently from all over the Country and beyond marching up the High Street.

crusty, some of those photographs look like they could be 1900 rather than 1960. Very interseting I think, really...can you correctly position cheapside street and any of the buildings in the main ariel photo that remain?

also the structure of the broomilaw and adjoining streets is clearly evident in this photograph. small warehouses running west/ east obviously for unloading, larger warehouses running north/south for storage. No connection for the public to the river, was there any at all. Do you know, apart from Glasgow Green?

For reasons I've never fathomed quality mass market photography didn't kick off till the 1980's. Hence photographs taken in the sixties and seventies are often times worse than Victorian snaps (much like architecture).


I believe Cheapside runs like this...
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/cheap1.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/cheap2.jpg

Cheapside street in happier times.
http://www.mitchelllibrary.org/vm/images/G226/G022600X.jpg

-------

To return to the M8 underpass... I would spotlight the columns, wall off sections for storage/workshops, demolish unused overpasses, install quality street lamps, paving and landscaping, demolish Anderston ticket office and move it down to the platform, leaving the station exposed possibly with a glazed canopy, close/realign the road system on the ground crazy AND confusing. Oh and a 60 floor tower looming over it all just for kicks.

GCC, Dandara if you want to steal any of those ideas PLEASE do. :)

Here's a couple of images taken during the construction of te Kingston bridge, the blue lines indicate Cheapside St, the red "frame" indicates the site of the warehouses. Nothing remains of them as it seems they were replaced not long after the fire with the warehouses shown on the images. A few structures remain from the period in the area, but nothing in Cheapsde St.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/cristy_bunt/Glasgow%20IRR%20and%20CDA/cheapside_diag1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/cristy_bunt/Glasgow%20IRR%20and%20CDA/cheapside_diag2.jpg

RE access to the river at the time, well up until the 1960's there were innumerate passenger and a couple of vehicular ferry services operating on the Clyde, but yeah, access was limited duw to industry. The Green was the most obvious place of access and everything east of it. You could feasibly get onto the Clyde at Carlton Pl too. Other than that you'd have to have gone to Erskine or somwhere. Spose thats why a trip doon the watter was so popular... you got to see the rivr bounded by green instead warehouses and shipyards.

................... what about the construction of the weir upstream of the suspension bridge, when was that done and why?

There's been a wier there since the beginning of the 19th century, we're now on the third version of it I believe. That was done, firstly and most obviously, to give some control over the water level as Glasgow has been plagued by floods since its beginnings. The second reason, I imagine, was to do with making the upper harbour navigable for ocean-going ships as it wasn't long after the construction of the first wier that dredging of the Clyde actually started.

thanks mate.

No problem pal :)

I see the demolition of the existing buildings at Cheapside Street is ongoing at present by Central Demoltion.

They are not wasting any time in clearing the site.

Thats good they have started to clear cheapside street it is unsigtly and mostly derelict at the moment anyway, anyone know what is to go as cheapsides nieghbour next door the old daily record building next door was cleared a while ago and i dont think anything has been earmarked for that site... a few years ago there was talk of a couple of colleges amalgamating to this site but i dont think anything came of it.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1633/cheapsidenextdoorneighbour4ll.jpg

Ok right, seeing everyone has nae knowledge of cheapsides nieghbour and have rubber eared me on this Q i have came across a document produced on Central Quays next phases.

http://www.akeler.com/dev01.asp

Phases 3,4,5 still to be completed, looks like the standard stock business units the same as is existing on Hydepark st at the moment will be constructed on the warroch st side,Ph 5 the oval building intrigues a wee bit, anyone ?

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/386/cqmap5ij.jpg

Nice find M.

Not at all happy with Central Quay, but the phase 5 ellipse looks tasty, 10 floors? Reminds me of the canned Skypark.
http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Alternate/Cheapside_alan.jpg

Sounds like our wishes will be granted regarding the M8 undercroft and Anderston station as well.

Hmmmm the Oval does look fairly interesting, but the rest? Naw.

Fingers crossed it'll all be hidden from view on the Kingston Bridge by the new-and-amazing Cheapside proposal!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/gleegieboy/cheap.jpg

haha Gleegie the M8 offramp gone a bit all 'woblly'. :laugh:

Good to see the site being cleared.

Gleegie, what pano software are you using to do the stitching?

My trusty (very) old Canon A70 has a great pano mode built in, which combined with the stitching software supplied on CD produces excellent results. Looks here like you're taking your own completely separate pics then stitching them using a separate piece of software?

Photoshop.

I'm just fooling around to see how far you can push the software, the two photo's above were shot at different zoom ratio's and aspects, I flung them together on a whim.

Well Alan, with all the talk about Dalmarnock Tower and skyscrapers in Glasgow just now, don't you think it would be a good time to release your plans for Cheapside?

Strike while the iron is hot and all that.... :)

gm+ad : curious rationalism (http://www.rias.org.uk/content/default.asp?page=s4) is out now and it covers Cheapside!

gm+ad are literally building a new skyline from scratch, although I admit disappointment at the (relatively) low heights, the city centre site is exponentially more important than Glasgow Harbour and I'd hoped this would manifest itself in scale, the overall density however is certainly impressive and moreover essential if Anderston is to be reactivated. It is probably fitting that Elphinstone (which looks like being the tallest) crowns the backdrop rather blocked from the foreground.

Great to see glass curtain walling not being used, materials haven't been revealed but certainly they'll be top spec.

The scheme is to be submitted for approval in Spring 2006 and details have been uploaded to futureglasgow (www.futureglasgow.co.uk).

Hmmm me thinks this reminence of the original application as far i can gather gleegie, or its a conceptional sketch... cant tell by this sketch what the final outcome will be ...similarities to GH2 IMO, towers are the order of the day though. look forward to looking at the planning application. :)

Thanks for the pic.

It's a completely new concept layout, so non of the other images you have Mo in your extensive archive collection are relevant.

Why all the secrecy? It's a sensitive site, our clients and gm+ad want to do a brilliant scheme...........don't want anyone going off half cocked or being deliberatly objectionable, remember Red Road, when anyone with half an eye open could see the comparison was nothing like GH2 ..........we'll release images when they're right


http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Skyscrapers/Cheapside1.jpg

Not sure on the designs... looks very 40's New York to me! Of course, it's hard to tell just now.

It is fantastically dense, however. :)

I am liking it. It is like a city within a city, if you know what I mean.

The GM + AD sketch might not give us the specific detail of what will actually be built, but it certainly gives us a perspective on the size and scale of the site and the density of what is intended.

I think it will be absolutely awesome. It is a relatively large site in terms of footprint area but not huge.

The development must be one of the most ambitious single sites undertaken by one Architect and one Developer in Glasgow in a long time.

That site along with a few of the other sites about to come on stream will be a real shot in the arm to the Glasgow economy.

That site along with a few of the other sites about to come on stream will be a real shot in the arm to the Glasgow economy.

Agree with you totaly Socceroo. :)

Original scheme by GM+AD with an oval tower at the forefront ,high density was always the originality of Cheapside because of the strategic importance of the site and lack of land for which to develop on.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2941/cheapsidegmad2ay.jpg

Sin City. Cool.

Sin City
Hey, we dont want the casino thread spilling over to this one do we :sleepy:

Yeah - curious rationalism - great book!!!

cheapside is so

damn

big!

It's hard to beleive it's a one-office job.

streetscape is so important on a scale of that size . . . .

but first impressions are

WOW!

Good grief! It's huge! I would have hoped for at least 30 storys, but never mind - the density makes up for it, not to mention the unique design.

Can't wait to see more of this :)


So yeah, with Cheapside, Elphinstone, Dalmarnock, Elmbank, Glasgow Harbour, Elph Urban Village and CHQ, is this the dawn of "Condo" living in Glasgow?

We're only, like, 118 towers behind Vancouver :happy:.........




EDIT: forgot to ask: what are the chances of this getting approved? Is it too radical for the city? Will it be the usual 6 month approval process??

As long as they don't publicise it until after planning permission is given. Publicity only invites objections - about 150 of them, I believe. :)

Its far beeter to have a unique design of this scale rather than a generic tower. it looks very intersting. so tough to improve the public spaces under the kingston bridge

http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Skyscrapers/Cheapside_Panorama.jpg

http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Skyscrapers/Cheapside4.jpg

It does have a tech-noir appeal, not immediately beautiful but distinctively gm+ad and distinctively Glasgow?

The height limit of 24 flrs has been set by Dandara, not the council or architect. Anything higher is only viable for them with an increase in land values.

Mercifully Bellway Homes didn't buy the land, it seems Snodgrass Mill wasn't put down.
http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Residential/Snodgrass_Mill.jpg

Is this the original application Gleegie.. or the updated version ?

[img]http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Skyscrapers/Cheapside4.jpg

It does have a tech-noir appeal, not immediately beautiful but distinctively gm+ad and distinctively Glasgow?



I think it is very clever. It is a spark of ingenuity which could set alight a lot of quality regeneration in Glasgow which has not been seen in such quality, quantity, scale and durability of character since the Victorians developed Glasgow.

It is taking a up until now relatively insignificant section of Glasgow's Riverside, recognising it and taking it into the City. It is in effect enlargening our City Centre with its scale and density.

The developer should be applauded for such a bold investment, but they obviously know what they are doing.

It certainly sets a benchmark in a lot of regards, the thought process and consideration which has went into it is there to be seen.

Welcome to downtown Glasgow guys.....welcome to downtown...where did Alan d go....come on mate, put down the drawing pen for a minute and give us your thoughts........stunning stuff.

And Gleegie you are right there is an immediately distinctive GM + AD signature on the development. There must be a name for it?

I gave you Fly Zapper and Knights of White Render....your turn Gleegie.

It's... interesting. I'm a closer to thinking "hmmm" than thinking "wow" or "ugh". This probably sounds quite pretentious, but I don't think I really understand it yet. It all looks sort of complex. It's like looking at the insides of a machine; you can understand the aesthetics of it and what the output is, but understanding each component and how they all work together is much harder to do and takes some skill. I'm lacking that insight, I think.

It's like looking at the insides of a machine; you can understand the aesthetics of it and what the output is, but understanding each component and how they all work together is much harder to do and takes some skill. I'm lacking that insight, I think.

I think thats what could be good about it. There are far too many boring buildings around, the only thing to worry about with complicated buildings is all the small gaps and places the wind and rain could howl into over the years.

Its still a great collection of buildings proposed here, it mirrors quite nicely the Anderston Centre as well...

It's definately modernist, but done with distinctive chutzpah and style. I think at this stage impressions are formed more by the artistry of the artist than the architecture.

It's a sort of hi-tech, industrial, supra dense and extravagant interpretation of seventies brutalism, each block is self similar as if cut from a larger whole.

producing a zippy catchphrase to encompass Cheapside, Hazelwood School and all between is a tall order though!

Lots of typically masturbatory elevational noodling but it looks like the spaces between those blocks are going to be utterly grim.

I think a building similar to the great northern tower in Manchester would have gone quite nicely there running paralell to the motorway.

One thing, would it not be better if the taller buildings were closest to the motorway? So as not to block out evening sun in the smaller residences and perhaps also reduce some of the motorway noise?

Its okay, not exactly what I was hoping for.

As I interpret it commercial space will flank the motorway to cushion residentials beyond. Each block, above the lower reaches, will have expansive views east and west.

Between spaces are actually the scheme's most interesting aspect, the blocks will cushion noise, vibration and pollution from the bridge, pedestrian routes are being created to the IFSD and Argyle Street, a unique public open space is to be formed beneath the M8 canopy, Anderston low level is to be rehabbed with connections to the river and Fastlink, the Clyde Walkway is to be hard landscaped, a new footbridge built across the Clydeside Expressway, new footbridge to Springfield Quay, light rapid bus link stop and improved lighting.

So, yeah, masturbatory.

Swallow the hype if you like but what you describe is just words. The images show some odd and unconvincing looking spaces flanked and overshadowed by tall buildings, no pretence at a street pattern and no address to either the buildings adjacent, the motorway or the river. Its another formal exercise created in a vacumn and parachuted onto a site with little consideration beyond the stylistic. So, yes, it is indeed masturbatory.

I do agree that what will make or break this is what it is like at street level, and that really isn't possible to tell yet from the images, although it is clear that it doesn't suffer from what so many tall buildings do - merely being an extrusion of the plan. It is clear that the street level is being treated differently to the upper floors/and the tower elements are different again.

It's got style - so what? It will be in a very noticeable place, and it's scale, if nothing else, will ensure that attention will be paid to it. So therefore it's quite appropriate that it has some articulation to it.

For tower blocks parachuted without reference to the streets around - look at Robert Matthew's Gorbals blocks, aligned perfectly not the street or any existing buildings, but to a North/South axis.

I'll say I'm quietly optimistic.

Well if it is indeed masturbatory chaos, you're missing out on a whole lot of fun... cheer up and join the party. Tissues/socks optional.

Given the proximity to the bridge and motorway, I'd be concerned about anything on the eastern edge below that level. That will be some view, to the belly of the beast as it were, devoid of any natural light.

Who would want to live in a place like that?

Who would want to live in a place like that?

The same sort of people who moved in to the Co-op building & adjoining new-build apartments on the other side of the bridge.

I see your point, and share your concerns. I'll never understand the people who shell out big money for mediocrity. They're the idiots that drive up prices for the rest of us!!!

Words, I find, are a useful tool of communication although I admit they are best deployed against those who care to
read them. The site is a dream dressed as nightmare, I doubt any city in Britain has such large tracts of derelict
land in the heart of the CBD, certainly not with this degree of rail and motorway access. The site does have
constricted river access and sunlight, more reason to congratulate Dandara/gm+ad for dragging it back
into the fold.

No pretence at a street pattern doesn't make any sense either, 5 towers down Warnoch street to the river
will be one of the most impressive vista's in the city.

So, yeah, keep up the masturbation. Your generic criticisms hold no truth.
http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/extra/river5.jpg

Nice attempt at deflection. Generic criticisms eh? They are entirely specific and warrant a more specific response than your wishy washy apology for a scheme that obviously values commercial concerns more highly than architectural ones (damn those 'commercial practices'...).

it certainly doesnt make any pretence at a street pattern. That space in the middle is not a street, its not a convincing looking public space, indeed i am at a loss as to what it is beyond whatever was left over after the lego blocks were stacked up in the manner they were. The massing is distinctly odd also. Setting aside whether the height should have been towards the motorway (or rather towards the city) there appears to be no rhyme nor reason as to how it is placed, we have some arbitrary looking set backs which stop there being a major gesture to the river front yet which still blocks light to the deeper parts of the site.

Its context is not fabulous and perhaps thats the reason why it is ignored but pretending your site is something that it isnt is not a sustainable strategy to my mind. Everything to its west is considerably smaller rendering the gesture that the tall blocks make pretty meaningless. It also somehow manages to completely ignore all of the surrounding geomtries by the looks of things. Quite how our cities are going to become better through architecture which ignores them is beyond me.

Nice attempt at deflection. Generic criticisms eh? They are entirely specific and warrant a more specific response than your wishy washy apology for a scheme that obviously values commercial concerns more highly than architectural ones (damn those 'commercial practices'...).

it certainly doesnt make any pretence at a street pattern. That space in the middle is not a street, its not a convincing looking public space, indeed i am at a loss as to what it is beyond whatever was left over after the lego blocks were stacked up in the manner they were. The massing is distinctly odd also. Setting aside whether the height should have been towards the motorway (or rather towards the city) there appears to be no rhyme nor reason as to how it is placed, we have some arbitrary looking set backs which stop there being a major gesture to the river front yet which still blocks light to the deeper parts of the site.

Its context is not fabulous and perhaps thats the reason why it is ignored but pretending your site is something that it isnt is not a sustainable strategy to my mind. Everything to its west is considerably smaller rendering the gesture that the tall blocks make pretty meaningless. It also somehow manages to completely ignore all of the surrounding geomtries by the looks of things. Quite how our cities are going to become better through architecture which ignores them is beyond me.
Bawsacks.

If this scheme put commercial values before architectural, then Dandara would never have decided to develop here. Just now this wasteland is uninviting and publicly unreachable. Where is the value in that? They are taking a huge gamble, making sure that what they are going to build will be a keystone in the regeneration of this city's river front.


And please, enlighten me: how on Earth can you tell what this development will/will not be like at street level given the renderings/masturbatory elevational noodling we have at present? As far as I'm concerned, you can't tell hee-haw from the images we have to work with - wait until we have concrete examples of the public spaces and ground level design before you judge. If you do end up being correct however, I will happily retract my statement.

The only thing I'm going to agree with you on is that the tallest building should be closest to the motorway. Is there a reason why this is not the case, Aland/Gleegie?



But it's your last comment about ignoring the development's surroundings that gets me the most. What?! Do you mean to say that every building should in some way relate to the building beside it? There is no room for buildings of this size to look different from their surroundings? Rubbish.

What if we cover it in White Render? Would that do the trick?

The scheme is entirely white render. The images have been artificially aged to show what it will look like 2 months after completion.

Bawsacks.

If this scheme put commercial values before architectural, then Dandara would never have decided to develop here. Just now this wasteland is uninviting and publicly unreachable. Where is the value in that? They are taking a huge gamble, making sure that what they are going to build will be a keystone in the regeneration of this cities river front.


I am afraid thats really quite a fatuous argument. Dandara are not doing this out of any sort of philanthropic notion. They are doing it for commercial reasons and they are doing so because they perceive a demand. They are obviously wanting to get the most out of their investment so they have employed commercial architects to cram as much on the site as possible. Now there might be an architectural reason for it being so overbearingly dense but nobody has even attempted to explain what that reasoning might be indeed its very density not only damages the spaces within and around but it reduces the impact of the tower elements.

And please, enlighten me: how on Earth can you tell what this development will/will not be like at street level given the renderings/masturbatory elevational noodling? As far as I'm concerned, you can't tell hee-haw from the images we have to work with - wait until we have concrete examples of the public spaces and ground level design before you judge. If you do end up being correct however, I will happily retract my statement.

Its really quite simple. One merely needs to look at the size and shape of the spaces it creates versus the height of the buildings around them. There is a lot of height in there and some fairly narrow spaces inbetween, they certainly seem to be left over spaces too. The blocks follow their own 'logic' and whats left is whatever it is.

The only thing I'm going to agree with you on is that the tallest building should be closest to the motorway. Is there a reason why this is not, Aland/Gleegie?

Hmmmmm is that someone else who has an interest to declare? I thought declaring even the most tangental interest in a project was practically obligatory here...


It's your last comment about ignoring the development's surroundings that gets me the most, though. What?! Do you mean to say that every building should in some way relate to the building beside it? There is no room for buildings of this size to look different from their surroundings? Rubbish.


I make no claims for 'every' building. Universal principles will always encounter a scenario which invalidates them at some point. I have no problem with buildings 'looking different'. Contextualism is a load of old wank if it means you merely ape what was there before. Contexts change in time. That however is not a licence to ignore what is there. If you have smaller development on one side and you have a tall block and a smaller one in your development it takes a certain sort of perversity to jump to your tallest element directly next to the small building next door.

What if we cover it in White Render? Would that do the trick?

What a childish comment. It has to be said that i do rather suspect that if this was badged as a Cooper Cromar design you would be much slower to defend it.

The bulk of the scheme is residential, which for obvious reasons has to be kept back from the motorway, hence what you see. The flanking blocks are of sufficient scale to do a job of muffling the road whilst maintaining an easterly aspect for loftier residents.

As for the street pattern, I read your argument, see the plans and cannot sustain the correlation. The development sits snugly between Warnoch Street, Cheapside street and cuts a new central avenue between, dissected by three public squares. The southern sun will shine down all 3, the bulk of the blocks being massed to sit one to the side of the shadow in front. In any case public realm improvements have not yet been visualised, so it may be worth following your advice and produce less words till such time as you/we've seen it.

The plans for the eastern M8 flank are indeed dirge, but seeing as gm+ad/Dandara have no truck with them it does seem rather an odd choice of stick to hit them with.

But really, your anti height/density arguments are at odds with your chosen chat room and indeed the geography/status of the site. I am certain your views will find receptive audience with A+DS and their like but the city is only going to get back on its feet by redensifying and with no arbitrary upper limit on that density. Cheapside is not going to emerge from its present mess by replicating the present mess, a fresh start is required, Cheapside is a fresh start.


Noone has defended Elph more than me, but I agree, I wish I could be as quick to defend the rest of CC's work.

Not declaring your interest then? Tut tut ;) Does the sock puppet have a sock puppet? ;)

Noone has defended Elph more than me, but I agree, I wish I could be as quick to defend the rest of CC's work.

That's actually unfair, City Park is excellent and Byres road Crown street projects are good.

----------

The only interest I have to declare is the betterment of Glasgow. :)

Outofchaos are you an architect? If so post some of your work. Or have you posted it already and I can not see it because it is blending in with the white background of the forum?

Are you an architect Glagow? Have you posted your work? Does one have to post work before one can comment or is it just those who dont follow the prevailing orthodoxy?

The only interest I have to declare is the betterment of Glasgow. :)

Really? You are certainly quacking like a duck and someone else seems to suggest you have webbed feet...

I was happy to debate the project with you (god knows why), but unfortunately I don't do panto.

Thats faor enough, you are the one thats being evasive. TBD suggested you had an involvement (perhaps even a vested interest....). All you need to do is come clean as to whether you do or not, after all, its the done thing here...

I have to say i find your call for no limits on density really quite concerning. That kind of Tory laissez-faire approach to planning policy really cannot be good for the city.

The scheme is SO derivative though...

But what an idealistic image, with only the merest hint of the Kingston bridge in the background.

http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Skyscrapers/Cheapside1.jpg

Interesting, if at times childish, debate. I've not fully made my mind up on this yet. From the drawings we have, I've come to a couple of conclusions.

The land to the West of the Kingston Bridge is currently not dense at all, and if it is to densify then Cheapside is the obvious starting point. If you want to extend the City Centre past the great big huge barrier that is the KB, then you need to do it in a big way. So the density, in my view, is a Good Thing.

What does concern me, however, is the apparent lack of panache in the design. It's early doors and I could be entirely wrong, but to me the current designs look like a bit of a mistake - it's all just too square, monolithic and lifeless. I can imagine people looking back 20 years from now, asking themselves "What were they thinking?" To me, this site is crying out for some curves and character to liven the place up and act as a counterpoint to the big, brutal KB. So the current tower designs are a Bad Thing.

The scheme is SO derivative though...


Derivative of what?

To see how it interacts with the Kingston Bridge is certainly going to be... interesting.

Thats faor enough, you are the one thats being evasive. TBD suggested you had an involvement (perhaps even a vested interest....). All you need to do is come clean as to whether you do or not, after all, its the done thing here...

I have to say i find your call for no limits on density really quite concerning. That kind of Tory laissez-faire approach to planning policy really cannot be good for the city.
I didn't suggest Gleegie had an "interest" at all, I just asked him about it because he is far more in-the-know than me about the development. As for me, I'm an engineering student at Glasgow University - if you had being paying the blindest bit of attention to anyone else but yourself, you would have already known that.


This whole situation really stinks of sour-grapes, outofchaosaworld. We are presented here with one of the most ambitious schemes this city has seen in decades, yet (bizarrely) you can't seem to find one positive thing to say about it. Of course if you don't like it, then who am I to say otherwise - and of course you are the architect here, not me, but it seems that you enjoy missing out a lot of the basics when arguing your piece.

I think the biggest thing that I don't understand here is the huge difference in attitudes to the location of this site.

We are dealing with a site that has been crying out for regeneration for so many years now, an embarrassment to the city. What would you have put there instead? In my opinion this proposal has grabbed the area by the balls and is completely changing the face of the river-front. Design aside, the ambition of the project must be applauded. Just so happens that I think the design is fantastic, and while the images aren't terribly clear, I feel the project just reeks of class.

The density is also cracking. This is city centre Glasgow, for God's sake! It should be nothing but dense... have you ever actually been to a city bigger than ours? (rhetorical question). Density is important when rebuilding the fabric of a city - if it's not dense enough in a spot like that, then it is without doubt a wasted oppertunity. Glasgow is, by all accounts quite a dense city anyway. I see no reason why this should change, or better still, be improved.


Anyway, Cheapside aside, I resent your CC comment. I have also defended Elphinstone Place to the hills, I think City Park is fantastic and the residential development in Linlithgow is a real touch of class. You've got to stop diving in, mate, it just makes people annoyed. And I thought you'd appreciate the white render comment; acting like a child seems to be your specialty.



The way it meets the Kingston will be interesting, but it's such a crucial part of the design, I'm pretty sure it won't have been overlooked.

As for me, I'm an engineering student at Glasgow University - if you had being paying the blindest bit of attention to anyone else but yourself, you would have already known that.

That much was indeed obvious which was why i didnt ask the question of you. But then if you had been paying attention then you would have known that...

This whole situation really stinks of sour-grapes, outofchaosaworld.

Really? Because i dont like it? Is it sour grapes on the part of those who criticise LQ? Or those who think the building at the cross is rotten? Or those who think PPP is flawed? Is to criticise anything an example of sour grapes?

We are presented here with one of the most ambitious schemes this city has seen in decades,

Yes its ambitious but its less ambitious than GH or Crown Street. Its a far safer bet than either and indeed it shows much less ambition than Elphinstone to my mind.

yet (bizarrely) you can't seem to find one positive thing to say about it.

Is ambition alone enough? The Red Road flats were nothing if not ambitious after all...

Of course if you don't like it, then who am I to say otherwise

I do apologise, it appears i have left some doubt...

- and of course you are the architect here, not me, but it seems that you enjoy missing out a lot of the basics when arguing your piece.


Actually its the basics that i am arguing for. I am looking for something which has some sort of a notion of urban design and which doesnt just create form but creates *place*. I dont think this does and while it may help with regeneration its better to get such things right.

I think the biggest thing that I don't understand here is the huge difference in attitudes to the location of this site.

We are dealing with a site that has been crying out for regeneration for so many years now, an embarrassment to the city. What would you have put there instead?

There are, to my mind, two ways of dealing with the site. One is to continue the sort of scale that LQ and that GM +AD building have set up. Some fairly simple urban blocks, a bit of height to the river, maybe a decent sized urban space to the centre. The other is to go to the other extreme and stick a big fuck off tower on there. The Ian Simpson scheme for the site was much more convincing. It had a lot more balls and probably acheived a similar density whilst being less grim.

In my opinion this proposal has grabbed the area by the balls and is completely changing the face of the river-front.

You are of course entitled to that view.

Design aside, the ambition of the project must be applauded.

So design doesnt matter? Ambition is all?

Just so happens that I think the design is fantastic, and while the images aren't terribly clear, I feel the project just reeks of class.


So since the images arent clear what is it makes you think the project reeks? Is it perhaps the name attached to it rather than any actual aspect of the design?

The density is also cracking. This is city centre Glasgow, for God's sake! It should be nothing but dense... have you ever actually been to a city bigger than ours? (rhetorical question). Density is important when rebuilding the fabric of a city - if it's not dense enough in a spot like that, then it is without doubt a wasted oppertunity. Glasgow is, by all accounts quite a dense city anyway. I see no reason why this should change, or better still, be improved.

There is some quite linear thought in there. Density = good therefore more density = better. It doesnt work that way. Density is good, but only if its accompanied by useful external space (i would love to see the sun path analysis for this one...). There can be such a thing as too great a density and it looks to me as if this one is straying into that zone.


Anyway, Cheapside aside, I resent your CC comment. I have also defended Elphinstone Place to the hills, I think City Park is fantastic and the residential development in Linlithgow is a real touch of class. You've got to stop diving in, mate, it just makes people annoyed. And I thought you'd appreciate the white render comment; acting like a child seems to be your specialty.

Well one might consider comments like 'bawsacks' to be childish but hey, who am i to say ;) Perhaps CC were a bad example, perhaps Keppie might have been better. The point is, that this scheme is getting an easier ride than the drawings suggest. There are some nice seductive images there but if you actually analyse the proposals and ignore the style there is something very hard-nosed and commercial going on. Build 'em cheap, stack 'em high looks to be the order of the day.



The way it meets the Kingston will be interesting, but it's such a crucial part of the design, I'm pretty sure it won't have been overlooked.

What in the drawings as shown suggests that?

Derivative - as in reflective of similar stylistic and aethetic moves made by Chipperfield in Spain for example or various other numerous examples throughout Europe currently.

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing mind, before everyone jumps in!

I really hate quoting matches.

Chaos, you are persistently suggesting that most members of this board are in love with GM+AD, that we think they can do no wrong and I would imagine that you also think that we also all have blow up dolls of both GM & AD that we do unspeakable things to every night before we go to sleep.

I couldn't care less that Alan used to post on this board (his experience & contributions were appreciated, but I didn't always agree with him), and nor could I care less about who built what. I don't know enough about architecture or have interests in any particular practice to choose favourites. And I'd suggest that the latter is true for most members here.

The simple fact is that GM+AD tend to put out quality projects, so they get praise. If they were to put out crap, we'd say so. Same goes for all other practices here. The diffeence is that the other practices have had more misses than hits recently (Keppie should be ashamed of Cumbernauld's brand new beige box... straight out of the 70's).

There's no conspiracy theory, no love in and no preferential treatment. So please, stop acting like a 5 year old in the playground at school. It is most unbecoming of a professional like yourself.

you also think that we also all have blow up dolls of both GM & AD that we do unspeakable things to every night before we go to sleep.

Well I for one do.

Is everything in proportion, or are there 'gestures' sticking out everywhere?

Chaos, what’s with your childish retorts? There is no need.

I think its clear that GM+AD are one of the best architects in Scotland and have considered sun path diagrams and such like. They are not idiots.

These blocks are, in my opinion, well composed in form and fenestration and would look excellent detailed in stone (chipperfield - spain), precast concrete (reich & hall - granton) or maybe different metal cladding (adjaye - london, allies & morrison - student halls).

However i think we all except that it is difficult to humanise the public spaces, especially under the Kingston bridge and no matter how the buildings look on a city wide context, if the spaces are poorly thought out they will be socially disregarded and the project will be considered a failure as it has not enhanced the locally area.

Do you agree?

Accch I feel that our arguing will not go anywhere, Chaos.

Lets just leave things were they are, and when the final images and details for the project are released we can have a proper discussion with substantial facts, figures and reason.




Lol @ maccy, btw :)

Hmmmmm i didnt mention any conspiracy Chief, methinks you protest too much ;)

As a side note i drove down under the bridge tonight and for all that its a useless and desolate place it is spacially absolutely fantastic, very dramatic but its such a pity that such a significant space in the city is effectively wasted.

A side issue:
I would question why a city which has design on creating a serious Financial Services centre feels the need to infest such areas with such a residential presence?
Proposal looks ok-does Alan D no longer post on here?

Thats faor enough, you are the one thats being evasive. TBD suggested you had an involvement (perhaps even a vested interest....). All you need to do is come clean as to whether you do or not, after all, its the done thing here...

I have to say i find your call for no limits on density really quite concerning. That kind of Tory laissez-faire approach to planning policy really cannot be good for the city.
No, I told I am not connected with gm+ad. You chose not to listen.

If disproportionate attention is given to gm+ad it is because alan is the only architect with conviction and pride enough to post and explain what they are doing.

You work for Aedas do you not? When you have confidence enough to expose your own work to criticism, do let us know.

Again with this 'post your work' nonsense. Did i miss you posting yours?

Our work has been on here and subject to discussion before and i am perfectly happy to talk about anything that is in the public domain (In a purely personal capacity i should say). My own current and recent work is still subject to embargo as it mostly remains at a fairly sensitive stage in the process (FWIW North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, P&K and Edinburgh Schools all won, currently bidding another). If you want to pick holes in my previous work then feel free, i was involved in some of the earlier stages of the Anderston Regeneration scheme, Fife Schools, our competition winning scheme for Stoneymollan, The Ardrossan Ferry terminal and the fit out of the ground floor unit in the Lighthouse on Mitchell Street. Only some of the above feature white render ;)

Not everyone on here's an architect.

What about Glasgow Cross station, I understood Aedas were behind some of the new rail stations?

We are involved with Crossrail. That wasnt one of mine. We are also involved in Edinburgh Trams and have just been appointed on the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link as well as Clyde Fastlink. Transportation is one of the bigger parts of what we do after education these days.

A side issue:
I would question why a city which has design on creating a serious Financial Services centre feels the need to infest such areas with such a residential presence?
Proposal looks ok-does Alan D no longer post on here?

Is the Cheapside Development within the recognised "boundary" of the Financial Services District? Is pretty much everything west of the Kingston bridge up to the SECC apart from the Akeler tranche of land around the Daily Record all not residential or planned residential?

Is the Cheapside Development within the recognised "boundary" of the Financial Services District? Is pretty much everything west of the Kingston bridge up to the SECC apart from the Akeler tranche of land around the Daily Record all not residential or planned residential?


Even if that were the case (and it quite possibly is), Snodgrass Mill, 220 Broomielaw....I'm sorry but there are enough opportunities for residential zoning. My concern is why glorious opportunities for raising the city's commercial profile is being missed-Elmbank and Elphinstone being prime examples-(should be solely commercial is my view). I mean where are the people coming from to fill theses almost endless developments cause it sure as hell ain't the jobs being created?

I rather suspect the council are more than a little bit nervous about population drain to Edinburgh and view extensive resi development as a means to counteract that and keep people within the city boundaries. I cant see it being sustainable though and these may be the last big resi developments that make it to reality.

That is something i have been trying to reconcile for the last couple of years.

We are told by the press that literally Billions have and continue to be spent on a seemingly endless amount of new build apartment developments in Glasgow. Yet we are told at least twice a year that Glasgow's population is dwindling.

Last year there was a bit of panic in that a lot of flats were not selling, i was expecting a lull this year, but apparently not - More 1 bed and 3 bed apartments for investors is the cry. Too many 2 beds were built that was all. :wink2:

I've always wondered where all the people are coming from who can


Afford a £140,000+ flat
Have a life that suits living in a flat in a city (e.g. it's not ideal for kids, is it?)

I think there's a wider issue than simply wanting to create the IFSD.. while investment in that area is to be welcomed, the council feels (I think) that they would prefer such areas not to be totally devoid of human presence outside of office hours.
It's a difficult balance to achieve, but we're playing catch-up here.. over in the US they've mixed commercial and residential successfully in landmark high-rise developments for years..

masturbatory... be careful here, you're talking about sex with someone I love.

Infest? I'm sure you mean "positively reinvigorate".TheC.........God you go on a business trip to China and Japan, come back to find new names but the same old views ........... but I think you're ok. too.

Derivative? now there's an original suggestion.

Outofchaosabananasplitwithacherryandcolaonthesideinnardinis, I've just looked at your Ardrossan Ferry project. I promise I won't tease you again.

Sorry.

..............well, except to say you've somehow made Ardrossan worse

I mean how is that fucking possible?

sorry.

Finished now.

And he's back.

-----------

Glad you've piped up, Alan - if you can be bothered to share some of your thoughts about the project with us, perhaps answer some of the questions being brought up here, that would be smashing :) (public spaces, sunlight, interaction with the Kingston Bridge etc).

Cheers mate :)

Now now Alan boy!
Further I am not who somebody suggested I may be. I sadly do not have that influence on the city's builds. In fact I am no more or less than David or Mo-people on the outskirts of this whole industry yet who retain a strong desire to see Glasgow great again.
Alas, from what I am seeing thus far it's a lonnnnnnnngggg way off.

Chaos- that's my very point, (Alan feel free to share your thoughts I am genuinely very interested), to me there are already a surplus of resi develpoments in the city, and that's before Elphinstone, Queens Dock, GH2, Graving Docks, Tradeston's multiple soddin developments, Cheapside, Elmbank, CHQ and many more see the light of day!! Forgive me my naiviety perhaps but for the want of a better phrase- I just don't get it!!
Whaur's the Offices/jobs as Frank might say?

Here's a response of sorts to the valid points made by asdgf and TheC (OK your first name is not Sandy, sorry no offence.)

Where are the people for all the flats?

1. Over the last few years the same number of people require a greater number of residential units because families are smaller and there are far more singletons each having their own flat.
Once students for example shared rooms never mind flats and married couples lived with a set of parents until they could affford their own house.
Meanwhile elderly people live a lot longer and tend to remain in their family home for much longer before going into care.

2. Although Glasgow's population as a city has gone down the actaul conurbation of Greater Glasgow has had a very stable population for some time.
Meanwhile Scotland's population has crept up in the last two or three years (Poles in the Parade) while the UK population is set to go up by 7million by 2030.
Glasgow could well get a little of this even if the vast majority of the increase will be in the South East.

3.Glasgow Council have belatedly realised that manufacturing will never return (sorry Vlad) and the finance, insurance, education, biotechnology, tourism and yes call and contact centres will provide the jobs of the future. The IFSD is an overdue but nevertheless welcome policy by the Council while the super casino concept perhaps not so neccessary.

4. MOST IMPORTANT: MORE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN THE CITY CENTRE.
This has happened in the US over recent years and also in Leeds Manchester and Liverpool. (Edinburgh has always had town centre residential.)
Will this trend go on forever? Obviously not.
Can the Glasgow conurbation sustain the three thousand flats referred to in TheC's post plus a couple of thousand more?
I think it can.

The difficulty is if they are all expensive (say £200k or more) and all come on the market at roughly the same time.

If the prices can be varied say some at £120k some at £140k some at £160k etc as well as super penthouses at £300k and the developments are spread over a reasonable period of time, say 10 years instead of 5 years then I think Glasgow can pull it off.

The great thing would be if these developments mentioned in TheC's post and others interact with the street and lead to greater vibracy at pavement level.

I was amazed when I was in Vancouver a couple of years back to witness so much activity in the streets at night, young people, not so young people, well off, not so well off. Lots of different places open, all sorts and quite safe too.

The Unite student residences are a point of reference, bland architecture yes but a whole new atmosphere at the Ingram Street High Street junction with a new Somerfields opening and a cafe/bar of some description adjacent.

If Aland and the other architects interact with the developrs and the planners to achieve this street life to complement all the new apartments then the city will have knocked it off.

Quite exciting really.

TheC and asdgf feel free to shoot me down but try and be nice about or I will get Aland on to you.

Welcome back by the way Big Man. Did you get a skyscraper in Shanghai to design?

well thank you murdomac and thanks to the rest of you for your kind messages, much appreciated.

in your message though outofchaosawhelk.... "bugger off then, ya big heeded bastard" I think you'll find "heeded "is spelt with an "ei" and not an "ee"

I promise though I'll go through everything tomorrow and answer as best I can, David and TheC. Ok?

If the prices can be varied say some at £120k some at £140k some at £160k etc as well as super penthouses at £300k and the developments are spread over a reasonable period of time, say 10 years instead of 5 years then I think Glasgow can pull it off.

You may well get your wish. I understand there are several developments currently being proposed in the city which plan to introduce smaller bedsit / studio and 1 bed flats into the mix to allow the developers to bring them to the market at more affordable levels.

There is of course a large differential in the average 'professional' salaries paid on the east coast and west coast, meaning that unless Glasgow can attract more of the higher paying type jobs, then developers will have to continue to target slightly different markets and cost bases.

Equally, there are also more and more developers and banks investigating alternative methods of house purchase, such as shared equity where they continue to own a share of the property (and and equal share of profits at sale time while the purchaser is responsible for repair and upkeep etc), this may further open the door to increasing ownership at a lower cost level. That and 35 year mortgages I suppose !

Well well ...its Mr D back for more torture.

Gluton for punishment are ye ?

Welcome Back Walter Mathau . :)

Please do Alan.
Murdo-I do hope you are right but I just don't see it.

Sorry, but I don't see this as a sustainable strategy in any shape without an influx of serious corporates. I was however wrong once, many years ago, so I do hope those with more knowledge can provide some of their own thoughts on this.

Doesn't Sandy Cromar sound like a name from The OC (not TheC, but that dire of show of ridiculously good looking people in Orange County, California)?

Doesn't Sandy Cromar sound like a name from The OC (not TheC, but that dire of show of ridiculously good looking people in Orange County, California)?


I'd like to specify once again that I am not he, nor Sandy Cohen of OC fame, nor Sandy in any shape or form in fact.

PS-The OC rawks!

Momus,

Your Edinburgh/Glasgow salaries point is well made. Call centre salaries will not of course match those paid in the new headquarters of Royal Bank of Scotland or Baillie Gifford Fund Managers but there is only 40 miles difference and the trains are always packed and M8 busy (even at 1am for some reason) so interaction between the two cities should actually increase Glasgow City Centre as a desirable place to live at least in terms of walking to Queen Street Station.
But the point is that Glasgow is at least trying to catch up and make up for lost time as opposed to throwing the towel in!

And yes TheC my fingers are firmly crossed!

We have discussed prieviously on the forum RICHARD FLORIDA'S book The Rise of the Creative Classes. Amongst other things he suggests that in modern USA jobs follow creative professionals, film makers, writers, musicians, artists, designers, publishers, software developers, advertising agencies and yes architects. These creatives go to environments that they find attractive, open tolerant exciting urban centres where off beat and eclectic individuals can thrive.

IT IS A VIRTUOUS CIRCLE.

I believe Edinburgh has it a little. Can Glasgow do it on a bigger scale?

....and yes architects. These creatives go to environments that they find attractive, open tolerant exciting urban centres where off beat and eclectic individuals can thrive.
The renaisssance and increased vibrancy of the city centre might explain in part then why BDP, 3D, and laterly Atkins (at the Broomielaw) are electing to relocate their offices.

Interesting point murdomac and it raises an interesting question. What is Glasgow for now? No longer a city of industry, in the shade of Edinburgh never mind the Londons and Frankfurts as a financial centre, not even any more really a centre of call centres. Is all thats left just to be a dormitory town with no real identity? A city which is a good place to live but doesnt really excel at anything, isnt really a centre for anything, has nothing to make it unique and special?

The renaisssance and increased vibrancy of the city centre might explain in part then why BDP, 3D, and laterly Atkins (at the Broomielaw) are electing to relocate their offices.

Though the availability of cheap office space and the desirability for housing of previous architectural strongholds like Park Circus might also be a factor...

Undoubtedly so, but for some reason, architects and other creative professionals seem resist relocating to the peripheral cheap office developments which have been springing up for years. Graven Images have been based in the Merchany City for years alongside Page and Park.

There are those of course who prefer the edge of centre, RMJM at Sky Park (formerly Mr D's neighbour from just off Sauchiehall Street) or Parrs and Holmes nearby at Finnieston. My point being that (and unless you know better) not many chose to relocate to Glasgow Business Park on the M8 for example.

No you are right, i know of none that are on the real periphery. There are many reasons for that. Folk like to work where there is an availability of public transport and places to go out and get pissed of a friday night. There is also a certain requirement for architects to be near to other professionals given the team based nature of most of our activities and even uncreative sorts like surveyors and engineers tend to be in the town still.

The other factor is the relative boom we are experiencing and as practices grown they tend to find that the nice little townhouses they previously occupied cant properly accomodate the teams of illegal immigrants they have pulled out of containers at the docks to operate the cookie cutting machine on yet another PPP scheme. The next step from the old townhouses tends to be proper spec office space which tends to be in the city centre and thus the centre of gravity has moved closer to the heart of the city.

In Edinburgh city centre, its quite the opposite - trying to get a decent amount of open plan office space to house even a relatively small contingent of people can be difficult.

Why should construction professionals feel the need to congregate in such a fashion though? Many other businesses move to out of town sites and seem to survive, especially in these days of voicemail, email, Blackberry and all pervasive internet access.

Maybe architects just care about where they are that bit more?

Edinburgh doesnt have the glut of office space that Glasgow has had of late. Electronic communication is of course fantastic and very useful but even with all that i still spend an inordinate amount of my time around a meeting table though these days thats as likely to be in Livingston or Bellshill as it is in town. A number of the big contractors are now out of town so the industry is more dispersed these days. I guess there is still a perception in architecture, if not the industry, that your address matters. Its historically been tricky for Glasgow practices to make much headway in Edinburgh for example and there is a belief if not a reality that you need to be actually located in a market to have sufficient visibility to make an impact in it. Its that kind of thought process that pushed us to move our north east operations from Huddersfield into Leeds (though it must be said that escaping Huddersfield is an end in itself).

I'll have a good long think about all your points today and reply as soon as I can.

Its that kind of thought process that pushed us to move our north east operations from Huddersfield into Leeds (though it must be said that escaping Huddersfield is an end in itself).
Hey, don't go knocking Hudds!! Some wonderful Viccy buildings quite reminiscent of Glasgow itself. BTW thanks to Aedas for making Bridgewater Place actually look like the renders. Good work Mr Chaos.

well, of everything written about cheapside street on skyscraper in the last few days, milton has made the most valid point, that is that projects like this are supportive of initiatives like IFSD because they offer the possibility of life after the offices have closed.

We believe that for any development strategy to be successfull anywhere, it has to offer a good cross mix of different types of uses, so the idea of zoning would be in my view counter productive.

Accordingly, Cheapside Street will offer a balance of residential commercial and office development. The mix, we are working on at the moment and I can't say more than that.

It is important though to stress that the images posted by gleegie are not to be taken literally or as representational of what the architecture or the final proposals will look like. They are a stage in a process, like it says in our book. Which is where gleegie lifted them from.

Instead they represent an indication of massing, density and height and a broader strategy about how you deal with the close proximity of the bridge. By the way, there is no intend to hide the bridge in the drawings , that is the way the image was cropped in the book from where it was lifted.

Is the architecture derivative, maybe. It's hard not to be influenced by what's happening in Europe, that's why we take office trips abroad after all. Is there an element of Chipperfield, probably, he's an excellent architect. There are also influences of Moneo and Siza. In the same way as there are influences of Moneo in Chipperfield's work and Siza in Moneo's.

But I like to think we've added our own touches, it has an attitude and is representational of our philosophy about bringing density back into the city from which other things will follow. The undercroft or the bridge also is being taken into account , but that broader strategy is beyond our particular remit and our site at the moment, though the development of Cheapside Street considers the positive development of the undercroft into account, set into a broader framework plan.

As for who's buying them, we'll our discovery and that of our clients is that if the buildings and residences are designed well enough and constructed of good quality materials, they will sell. GH2 has confirmed that, despite a more general difficulty in shifting some other apartments throughout the city.

You can be assured though that the development of the public realm and contribuitions Cheapside Street will make to the waterfront and the city is being unequivocally considered. It has also been in GH2.

aland, coming onto a message board like this, without hiding behind a 'mask' is really a very positive thing - architectural discussion in Scotland is all the richer for it.

Mostly, I've found architects to be very interesting people and have a lot of interesting things to say - more than other construction professionals anyway - but usually they shy away from really having open discussions for fear of being ripped apart.

Really, they are too precious, too sensitive.

Your cheapside comments above are much appreciated.

My job (journalist) would be so much easier - and a hell of a lot more engaging - if other architects were prepared to be so relaxed and open about discussing their projects.

Man, I could tell you some stories . . . .

"excuse me, but I never said that!"

"Yes you fucking did . . . listen, it's been recorded."

"But I didn't mean it!"

LOL!!!!!!

Welcome back to the pleasure dome Alan d. From what gleegie has posted and from what i see on my daily travels across the city i can see that it has been a particulary productive period for GM + AD.

Wrong thread i know but GH2 looks as if it is going to be stunning. We are even getting grudging acknowledgements bordering on complimentary from outofourorbit.

I am only the hairy arsed builder, but i don't know why anyone would want to criticise the general concept of Cheapside Street.

Questions on detail, aspects and architectural discussion great - we can all learn from such interaction and discussion on Glasgow and what influence the built environment has on the city's future.

But i was gobsmacked by some of the stuff posted on this thread earlier. Real ill informed sour grapes stuff.

Crusty did a couple of excellent posts way earlier on this thread about what Cheapside Street was previously - Machine Shops and Engine Sheds. We all know what has been there the last 10 - 15 years - tin sheds and Car lots.

Hey, don't go knocking Hudds!! Some wonderful Viccy buildings quite reminiscent of Glasgow itself. BTW thanks to Aedas for making Bridgewater Place actually look like the renders. Good work Mr Chaos.

The highest concentration of listed buildings in the UK is in Huddersfield i believe. Its still a dump mind you...

Bridgewater was a difficult planning process i think but the result is going to be fairly decent i think.

From the Sunday Herald (http://www.sundayherald.com/55487)



Dandara plans £125m Clyde development

Property company Dandara is planning a £125 million development along the River Clyde in Glasgow city centre as part of a major expansion of its Scottish operations.

The Isle of Man-based company, which has more than £1.5 billion worth of projects in the pipeline in three UK cities, would like to build 250,000sqft of offices on the Cheapside gap site on the Broomielaw between Central Quay and the Kingston Bridge.

It is also in discussions with a number of national chains and boutique hoteliers to locate a mid-market hotel along the waterfront.

So far, hoteliers have identified a gap in the market for a 150-bedroom hotel that has four-star rooms but without conference facilities.

Dandara, which bought the land from Clydeport and Glasgow City Council 18 months ago, is expected to apply for planning permission in August and could begin construction on the initial phase of offices in the first half of 2007.

As this is being dicussed on another thread, i thought i would further
eloborate on the undercroft @ Anderston next to cheapside st.

A fantastic oportunity awaits for to develop this section of land for a public
area, but at the same time it needs a major feasability study to be done on it.

Soundproofing and major environmental issues arise of course, this could be
overcome easily if the right investors could visulise the potential of this upcomming area.

Alan d ? :)


http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/2276/undercroft7xd.jpg

Yeah - such a vast amount of space underneath there - it's crying out to be used. I always thought they could seal it up and use the carriage/roadway as a roof ala the railway arches underneath numerous places in Glasgow and other cities that have arched railway bridges running through the city centre.

had a go at chopping cheapside in, view from Kingston bridge approach M8

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/sax0vtr/Stuff/cheapsiderender.jpg

Excellent. For what Glasgow lacks in height it should gain in depth and density.

Mind if I stick that on futureglasgow?

Nice one mate - thats a quality montage. Looks professional in my opinion.. although I wouldn't expect anything less from you sir :)

Just imagine Elphinstone far left and Cadogan to the right. Not bad at all :). And you're right gleegie - might not have huge height, but there is plenty of stuff going on..

excellent montage russell, sun setting and all....don't know how you did it for I don't think we've published a view from this angle.

Think though we're a bit higher than that, could be wrong but I think so?

Yeh no probs john go for it. I was gona stick cadogan sq in david but i think it would be partially hidden by the tallest cheapside tower so i never bothered, i may be wrong though on the positioning...
Alan your probably right, I was just going by the height of Hilton and the likely slope down towards the riverside, by no means perfect.
I used the image on p112 of your book (which gleegie had scanned and posted) and manipulated it to fit that angle btw :)

very good though mate, colour and tone, looks like a photograph, first time I've thought so about a montage.

Thought we'd built it already.

Cheers.
http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Skyscrapers/Cheapside_Russell.jpg

The evening light lends it warmth.

That's fantastic!
The only small question I have (and believe me I'm not criticising, as I couldn't do anything like that), is that the montage looks like it's on the other side of the motorway?
Or have I got the side the development is on wrong from the start?

It is on the other side of the motorway from the Hilton, isn't it?

On the western side...

cheapside is on the same side of the bridge/motorway as the hilton

cheapside is on the same side of the bridge/motorway as the hilton
I don't mean the same side of the river - I mean the different sides of the motorway..
In this picture, taken from earlier in the thread, I've drawn a red line on the motorway.. Cheapside is on one side, the Hilton on the other..
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e361/milton_75/Cheapside_Russell2.jpg

cheapside is on the same side of the bridge/motorway as the hilton

No its not its on the Western side like Vlad said above. Cheapside St is the other side of the motorway from the Hilton. Look at the model a few posts up aswell. Russell your montage is quite brilliant but there is just a tiny little bit of the Stobcross ramp you need to rub out that looks like its in front of the Cheapside buildings :)

think Bingo B meant on the north of the bridge and the river, rather than the south.........at least I hope so, eh BB?

no in fact bingo got his pish hotels mixed up and thought you were talking the thing down at the armadillo.

see how i got out of that one AD?!

just testing you all ;) well spotted

here ya go, a smidgen taller aswell

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/sax0vtr/Stuff/cheapsiderender2.jpg

Perfect :)

No its not its on the Western side like Vlad said above

It is, these buildings are on the western side of the M8. The other sidd from the Hilton. Hilton would be on the eastern side...

try inserting a comma after "not"...

try inserting a comma after "not"...
Cheeky ;)


I still can't believe how good the montage is - an absolute touch of class.

Try pulling the stick out yer arse crusty bint. I have dyslexia.

try inserting a comma after "not"...

Woops, I should read more carefully... :runaway:

Acchh I keep on looking at the images of Cheapside and I still can't help but wish they were a bit taller.... The whole thing has really grown on me recently - I'm definetly sold on the development, but it really could have done with a good deal more height.


Alan - any chance you could stick a spire or antenna on the top of it just to give it that extra 100 or so feet? :)

Are land values in Glasgow really that low? ( The reason the developer put a 24 storey limit on the buildings ). Liverpool has many tall proposals - I wouldnt have thought the land value in the heart of our CBD was much lower than theirs?

Try pulling the stick out yer arse crusty bint. I have dyslexia.

Away and run up ma hump... I was speaking to Vlad in defence of you.

Yer bums oot the windaw an the weans are pitching totties!

Oh the banter... u fae Grahamston?

Why not just accept that u misinterpreted my statement as both derogatory and directed at you and be done with it. Because, like everyone else you'll get bored of it after a few more posts and everyone else will be sick of it and you'll feel a slight remorse for having said what you might say and your interaction with others on this forum will feel slightly jaded after that. So like I say, and for the purposes of rhetoric, why not save us all the bother? This site is slow enough as it is.

Are you speaking from experience? Cheer up.

Crusty... :lol:

Is there anything happening across the Motorway on the site beside Washington Street?

Are you speaking from experience?

Not mine own, no.

Cheer up.

You don't know me well enough to say such a thing ;)

Lighten up sweaty pie :)

Sweaty pie. That sounds revolting...

The present future,
http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Cheapside.gif

can you not adjust the delay there fella ?

Quite impressive, I must say. Huge density indeed - will look awesome.

Nice work Gleegie, but it's moving to fast - gotta slow it down a bit, I'm already feeling a bit dizzy :)

what about a nice fade in, tardis like? :)

http://uk.f863.mail.yahoo.com/ym/uk/ShowLetter?box=Inbox&MsgId=9153_17240768_141375_1236_955429_0_1100_1248319_469639078&bodyPart=2&YY=11407&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&Idx=0

Haha Crusty if I was any lighter I'd float float away :)

Bloody hell I cant wait to see Cheapside built - it will make such a difference.

Any further with cheapside Alan D?. :)

Was thinking the same thing myself a few days back.

When did you say the plans will be submitted to the council for approval?

Prospect magazine has a revised image, a podium linked two towers with garden areas on the ledges. It was supposed to be submitted in Spring '06, but that obviously hasn't happened.

we're working hard on it now Mo, I'll post as soon as I can, promise.

Some images of the proposed Cheapside develepment by GM+AD from the Glasgow Architects site (http://www.glasgowarchitecture.co.uk/cheapside_street.htm) .

Is this the final design Alan D ?



http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/5349/cheapsidemon2kc7.jpg

Not convinced by these images. Would say the proposal looks no better than Chaos' Cadogan Square, actually just as equally pishy.

For the first time on here i feel genuiinely insulted...

Not convinced by these images. Would say the proposal looks no better than Chaos' Cadogan Square, actually just as equally pishy.
These images do NOT do it any favours.

I'm curious as to why these were made public.


And I still wish it had more height to it. The towers are too thin to impose from some angles.

I will be extremely disapionted if this is the final scheme. Although Gleegie had lifted the images from GM/AD's new book the Glasgow Architecture site has followed suit which implies that this design must be something nearer the final outcome...this site was prommised to be very special...lets wait and see what happens

Has some similarities to GH2 the more i look at it.