Taylor Woodrow's Anderston Centre redevelopment. Many thanks to da brain for the heads up. :)

It's 20 floors.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/cadogan2.jpg
http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Residential/Cuprum_site.jpg

The article in full.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/three.jpg

Awesome - it's a bit bland, but it'll add a certain depth to the water front skyline. Looks taller than 20 floors - must be the thin profile of the tower - me like :)

What stage is it at? It's gone pretty un-noticed so far, has it not?

I refuse to be seduced by the height... it's not exactly offensive, but is definitely still crap design. Lazy, uninspiring. It just begs to be done better.

I'm praying for some positive changes to the design before the thing actually gets built.

I agree, it is lazy design. The finish would have to be of a considerable standard for it to look any good. Reminds me of that QE3 heap across the river where all the residents are up in arms already at the poor construction standards...

I'd say it's maybe better to wait for a decent visualisation.

geez, im glad youre here yawn.

I was beginning to think i was abnormal for not being able to tell exactly the design quality and intent from a poorly scanned newspaper (newspaper never scans well) image probably about 40mm square.

maybe lets all hang on as the man says.

hi bingo bango. bit freaked out by some of the conclusions drawn on this thread, from so little information.

I refuse to be seduced by the height... it's not exactly offensive, but is definitely still crap design.

could you expand on your above statement. Why is it crap design? And personally I find crap design offensive. I think you should too; as you are an engineer, I'd say it was a necessity.

I'm praying for some positive changes to the design before the thing actually gets built.

chief, what positive changes will you be praying for?

I post information as and when I get it, I'm not in control of quality or content. Were there higher resolution images to pass judgement on, we would. There aren't. This was the format Glasgow's premier newspaper chose to illustrate a major scheme on its busiest street.

The pic shows location, height, mass and colour. Enough to form a first impression, of which mine wasn't that enthusiastic either. What the image doesn't show clearly is the adjacent 10 floor office block, which (from the low res image) appeared higher spec. As it happens I will be going to the planning office tomorrow, so hopefully I'll get information on materials, environmental reports etc, so, if anyone has any questions post now.

it'll add a certain depth to the water front skyline
Very good point. Keep towers away from the waterfront, unless exceptional.

Jeez. The problems of communicating on the internet, all summed up in one thread. Seeing as most of the comments are pointed at me personally and not at the tower, I'll put my thoughts on the building to one side (alhtough really this is an architecture forum so I shouldn't have to) and talk about myself first.

You started out reasonably enough by saying that "it's maybe better to wait for a decent visualisation" and I would agree. But what's to stop me from forming initial thoughts from what I'm presented with? As an engineer, I am quite aware that often the information you have at the beginning isn't complete and can change over time. But that doesn't stop me from working with what I have - I'm more than capable of developing a better informed opinion as the project progresses. Yawn and Bingo Bango appear to have taken issue with some of us (primarily me) forming initial impressions from a "badly scanned" pic - quite frankly, I think I have every right to form an impression based on whatever pictures the developers choose to publish. If I'm later proven to have been hasty or incorrect, I'll happily eat my words.

“Maybe lets all hang on”. “all”? - a sum total of three people had posted opinions. Also, what else would you suggest we do? All post saying, “Wait and see”? Now that would make for interesting reading! Furthermore, sarcasm is never appreciated, and at what point did I infer that I was trying to “tell entirely the design quality and intent”?

What is there to be “freaked out” about? A few short opinions posted in response to wee picture at the early stages of a project freak you out? Really?

I don’t find crap design offensive because I’m surrounded by crap design, and I choose not to be offended by everything I’m surrounded by. I think perhaps you’ve taken me too much on my word – it’s just a fleeting comment. Offensive is that heap that’s been thrown up next to Skypark (canny mind its name – the tall thing), or the student halls that have gone up next to the Audi garage. Crap design is the Buchanan Galleries, or this. I don’t utterly hate it, but it’s not great either. Does that help you understand a little better? Crap architectural design is very different from crap engineering design, and – not that it is for you to tell me what I should and should not find offensive – I do find the latter to be offensive. Architectural design, on the other hand is very subjective.

As for what positive changes I’ll be praying for… given your response to my previous 2-and-a-bit line response, I don’t really want to answer that one in these circumstances. Debates that take on this sort of nature are utterly pointless – particularly on the net. As far as I’m concerned, I saw a quick picture, and passed a quick judgement. I don’t expect to be taken to task on every word I write – I’m no one important so its not like my opinion matters anyway. I suggest you lighten up and either ignore my future posts or take them with a heavy pinch of salt.

Go on… pick at every word I’ve written here, too. I know you want to. The greatest irony is that in your ‘freaking out’ at others’ conclusions, you yourselves went way over the top.

and breathe… :-)

Judging, from that newspaper image the design does look pretty bland and uninspired. For a site like this, especially so close to the IFSD something a little special would be expected, especially somewhere such as the Anderston Centre (which through time is in a pretty abused, unloved condition) which makes such an impact to the city structure. Although, promising with a good height, I think the issue comes down to the material choice is, render or a rainscreen? it does look pretty dull at the moment.

It should be something special in that location but then again, it is right next door to 'The Bridge' which has to be one of the dullest buildings erected in recent years... :sleepy:

Sorry mate, wasnt aiming my post at anyone in particular. I was saying that as an architect i hadnt formed much of an opinion of it because of only having one small image available. Also, from experience of having buildings i'm involved with in the press, sometimes poorly portrayed with either a lack of detail or incorrect facts etc, the process has been interrupted to the detrement of the final design. the image isnt always the most important factor of a design quality. in fact it is my opinion that the pursuit of the 'image' can often be a factor in poor quality design.

the spaces around the scheme, the material, the layout of internal spaces etc are all far more important to success (again, in my opinion only) and none of that is communicated - only 'the image'

my point is that alot of the reaction to proposed schemes on here is to their image first and foremost and not to the way in which they work or will be experienced.

thank you for elucidating chief.
your response is very interesting. (as is your tagline)
psychologically rather than architecturally, LOL!

Okay, I've seen the plans and... it looks better (with reservations).

The office block will have a curved corner feature looking onto Argyle Street. Note disparity in residential/commercial floor plates. Looks as though the internal courtyard will function as surface car park, ie no underground parking. :(
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/Taylorschematic.jpg

Southern elevation. The development hits Argyle Street with curtain walling and precast "stone effect" concrete. As presented the two components clash a bit and I'm really not keen on the diminutive windows. You can see that seven floors of office equates to 10 floors of residential.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/Taylor1.jpg

Western elevation. The tower rises to 20 floors, (62m) and is composed primarily of "modular ceramic rainscreen cladding" apart from the Argyle Street corner which is graced with "copper rainscreen cladding".
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/Taylorwest.jpg

North elevation. View showing the internal courtyard/car park, which will have a feature curved glass stairwell. Given the lack of pencil/materials detail on this perspective I'm guessing white render or similar could rear its head.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/TaylorNorth.jpg

Eastern elevation. The office portion is 7 floors, 31.8m and luxuriously appointed in copper cladding and curtain walling.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/TaylorEast.jpg


my point is that alot of the reaction to proposed schemes on here is to their image first and foremost and not to the way in which they work or will be experienced.
Of course we are primarily concerned with image, it's the architect's job to fulfill function, I expect that to be a given, otherwise they wouldn't be in a job. The general public are only ever going to experience this from the street ie it's external appearance is of greatest concern to us here. Internal specification is only of interest to those locating within the building.

youre quite right about experience from the street being primary. But this experience is more that just visual. There are different experiences at different distances/scales.

flow round a building, passage through it, travel at distance past it. there are many different scales of interaction.

why do you expect all but image to be a given? i think many architects see it the other way round, having based their designs on just that premise - that visuals are the key, the 'image' is king to the detriment of function. good architecture is the fusion of so many disparate elements - programme, budget, buildability, environment, aesthetics, experience etc. poor architecture can be image over function, function over image, one thing overriding the harmony of the whole.

my main point is not against you, or in support of this scheme particularly - its more a fatigue of architectural image making that we are all guilty of.

A good book on the subject is The Anaesthetics Of Architecture. I would suggest a read.

There are different experiences at different distances/scales.

and we were just talking about its effect on the river and greater Charing Cross cluster... Virtually all residential/office development is self contained, only in cultural/leisure and shopping developments would the public (and we) be interested in flows and through passage.

It's funny you should say most development is image led because I would have thought the exact opposite. Pretty much every development I've seen in Glasgow is function driven, in fact I'm struggling to think of an image led project. Zaha's transport museum is the only one to spring to mind, perhaps you could help me out?

I'm sure architects would love to see image driven development in Glasgow just as much as the public, unfortunately financial realities seem to restrict such development to all but a handful of the most talented architects (who can make the money go further) and showpiece cultural attractions (where the public foot the bill).

I have a backlog of reading material to get through, but I'll seek it out.

Thanks for going down and getting those Gleegie - outstanding commitment as usual :okay:

Looks better than first thought IMO

It certainly won't be redefining Glasgow or it's surroundings apon completion, but it's of a high enough quality to fit perfectly into its place.

I mean with Elphinstone and Elmbank, who'll be looking at this anyway? And also, compared to it's surrondings, it's like the bloody Chrysler building of Anderson.... :)

Any idea on the colour of the Modular Ceramic Raincreen Cladding to this building Gleegieboy? That will go a long way to detemining how the building looks.

Like the espionage bit with the camera in Council office.

I like the height of it and i'm glad that such a development is getting built in Glasgow, but perhaps the Architects - Aedas? Could have used a wee bit more imagination without pushing up the costs.

In my opinion, the lower office block certainly looks a bit better than the tower in terms of cladding. But on the whole it looks like a hybrid of wee bits of other buildings that have already been built in Glasgow.

Acceptable but not remarkable.

sorry i havent been clear on the image led thing.

i mean so much is put in to the image being developed. (this by the way seems the wrong building to be making this point as the planning drawings youve gone and got are pish...) of course youre right that the scheme will be based on areas, numbers, cost etc and thats all well and good. the image im meaning is the design not of the architecture, but of the facade that is displayed and commented on and worked and reworked - the architectural image. This is like a high gloss put over a matt grey scheme (hope you get my meaning here...) to make it palatable. but the thing is its always been done. in architectural imagery, even the sky is idealistic. its one level of a more worrying trend of presenting an image that is alluring but not realistic in any social sense. Space Invader and his new chum have been chatting about mess on another thread - its always designed right out of visuals, of the image, but you cant purge it completely from the reality.

so if more time, effort etc was put in to addressing the aspects of architecture that create poor space/mess/deprivation or whatever instead of trying to gloss over it in a 'itll be alright no one will look that closely when we build the thing' type of way we might move forward.

even our superiors such as Hadid are guilty of this sometimes - the transport museum for instance wont actually look like the render - the material has joints and bumps etc that break up the purity of the image, of the form making and dilute the impact of it.

/goes back to sleep.

Terracotta ala Jury's?

Ironic really. This scheme sits on the site of one of Glasgow's prototypical skyscrapers: the Glasgow style Neptune House, a model working man's lodging house by the architect Peter McGregor Chambers that dated from 1906. It was on the corner of Pitt and Argyle Streets and was demolished as part of the CDA clearances to construct the Anderston centre. Shame as it was a satisfying piece of design and a credit to the city.

What's proposed isn't quite of that calibre and in particular what concerns me about the new proposals is, judging from Gleegie's photos of the planning drawings (good on you! the staff in there always get shirty about taking copies but it is allowed for purposes of criticism) the distinct lack of an active frontage on Argyle Street. With the exception of the full height glazing to the office and residential entrance lobbies, cladding the base storey of the building in 'Portland stone effect precast concrete' is distinctly anti urban and is begging for both trouble and graffitti. Doubtless this will be because the developers are presuming there are no, or few, pedestrians in this area, so why bother with retail units or restaurants, bars, etc, but unless you encourage them there won't be any pedestrians period and this area will stay dead. This on one of Glasgow's main throughfares! Given that this sits on a prominent site next to one of Glasgow's premier hotels (however bad it maybe), and not far from a train station that is in the throws of being refurbished, I would have thought the city would be looking for something a bit more sensitive than that.

Hmmm its just as bland as whats there already- a coat of clading of whatever that surfaces it wont make a diff untill there is a unique building shape..there seems to be no creative building design in the development IMO, we need more curves and shine to inspire the human eye.

Cadogan Square is a good example of a project where no effort has gone into image. A computer graphic/montage or drawing is the best way of illustrating a development and its impact, without it I am having serious difficulty in visualising this.

The diagrams and floorplans, the pish ones, are all that was contained within the planning app and so are presumably all that the council have to go on in formulating an informed decision. Clearly they are much better at projecting a mental image, or maybe they just rubber stamp them regardless.

Really appreciate you going into the Council Gleegieboy and getting what information you could.

This scheme sits on the site of one of Glasgow's prototypical skyscrapers: the Glasgow style Neptune House
This?
http://www.mitchelllibrary.org/images/G203/G020398X.jpg

http://www.mitchelllibrary.org/images/G203/G020356X.jpg

http://www.mitchelllibrary.org/images/G203/G020357X.jpg

distinct lack of an active frontage on Argyle Street
CMM's "The Bridge" retail frontage hasn't been a roaring success. Commercially sustainable retail on this stretch of Argyle Street is 10 years off at best. Don't know what's worse, blank wall or dereliction.

The bridge (I refuse to capatalise on it!) is a total shambles!!!! WTF is it sposed to be? Who da fook in thier right mind would want to let a space under that? Anyone on here daft enough to buy into it?

The bridge is a bit different at least (I quite like the window arrangements, for some strange reason), but on the whole I'm more against it than for it.

That's my home you're talking about!

The double height space and suspended upper floor doubtless count against small letsmiserly glazing panels aren't going to attract large tenants either.

You've got Venezia opened up across the street though and the council are investing heavily in public realm, paving, fancy traffic lights and white street lighting.

I've absolutely no idea what the Bridge is like as a whole - again, I'm judging purely on external aesthetics and a dodgy memory!

What's the build quality, spec and spaciousness like inside?

Lots of interesting opinions - I thought it would be helpful if you had some more legible images.




http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/aedasarchitects/2.jpg




http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/aedasarchitects/1.jpg

Welcome to the Forum Susan and thanks for the images of Cadogan Sq, gives us all a decent insight to what the Anderston site will look like. :)

I take it you are a promoter of the project from Aedas ?

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/aedasarchitects/1.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/aedasarchitects/2.jpg

now where have I seen that office block before?
http://www.murraydunloparchitects.com/casestudies/spectrum/index.htm

Thanks for those Susan :) I'll say this for the scheme, it certainly follows precedents set in the area in terms of aesthetic and lack of active street frontage. I do wonder though, considering the retail units under the Bridge are still lying vacant, what incentive is there to make provision for such space in any new development in this area? There is also no scope for a major increase in the residential population (please correct me if I'm wrong- do any of the other proposals for the IFSD/Anderston include a res component?) given it's designated usage so would, if included, a retail component be a success? It's also a bit of a paradox that the area feels very much urbane yet is so anti-urban, and as a result dead, at the same time.

Overall I don't think it's that bad, it kind of reminds me of Lancefield Quay without the render and with echoes of Spectrum in the glass section. A little more thought could have gone into the detailing ofthe east elevation of the tower component though... hardly going to make u want to wander down there is it? I can't say i have feelings towards it either way, but then (to quote Lisa Simpson) I am a child of the MTV generation and feel neither emotional highs nor low... how does it feel? ...hmmmmm.

Now now Aland! I suspect the argument is that they are responding to the architectural language of the area?

The office looks quite promising but the relationship to the residential is just awful. The street frontage. needs to be addressed in amore positive and engaging manner.

Another discussion is Argyle street - it has the potential to be a key route to the new harbour developments - it can have activity that the riverfront will not - just need to stick the expressway underground and form a grand street to the SECC and Glasgow harbour - easy!

On a previous point - Tesco Metro and a Job Centre Plus are the proposed tenants for the Bridge retail. I think the streetscape for this area may be some time off.

ach you're probably right baltacha, the Cuprum building further east has a large curved patinated copper front I believe.

Obviously that's just a response too, you know....... rather than just a complete and utter fucking rip off.

Hi. I got directed to this forum today. Usually I ramble on on designcommunity.com.
I'll come clean and say that I work for the firm of architects concerned, 'though I'm not involved in this design and hardly know more about it than you guys except for a brief in-office presentation recently. I trust that Susan's links give you a better pivot to discuss the scheme. To be honest, I was getting depressed about things looking at the first grainy image myself which, by the way, is not to say that it wasn't perfectly commendable to put it up in the first place, before I get shot down for being the image police.

The one extra bit of info. I can add is that the masonry on the lowest floor as it currently appears is not the whole story. The idea is to make it more perforated than that and to incorporate some sort of light feature.

But if we're restricting ourselves to the tall residential box, you'll accept that efforts have been made to go with a notion of verticality in breaking it up into taller, proportionally, elements, rather than just extrude a plan into a lump, and the thing isn't *that* tall: not tall enough for zing just by height.
It's solid with openings, which places it in comparison with the earlier skyscrapers rather than with the Miesian type.
Given that there's a fairly articulated plan going on inside (as opposed to open office floor plates) it can't so easily wave around expressively. One could stick out a great cantilevered chunk for the sake of wildness but maybe the developer's not willing to go there?

I must dash off to a CPD session so my ruminations must be cut short. Which is a fitting metaphor perhaps...

What is it they say about imitation and flattery.....

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/GLASGOWMAN/1.jpg

Now of course i have the untrained builders eye, but i would say that both buildings were about similar in height, similar window fenstration, similar mid floor panels, similar column arrangement at street and similar step back of upper floors

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/GLASGOWMAN/2.jpg

What happened Alan d, did you leave the drawings on the bus again?

Saying that, i doubt the Aedas office block is anything like Spectrum, just some similarities in terms of shape and scale.

I like the colours of the tower - quite nice and i like aspects of the tower where it is slender at the top also, the cream tiles on the west elevation could do with being broken up?

And now since we have got all these Aedas folk on the forums. Who is going to own up about all these fuckin PPP schools :)

Once again, great quality renders. I'm blown away by how real they look - closer to reality than (almost) anything else I've seen. Great job.

I think it's to be commended that those involved/remotely involved care enough to get themselves involved (even just a little) in the debate, and to give us something better to go on. So thanks.

Usual disclaimer - my opinion is very uneducated and highly impulsive! I just say what I see by looking at the renders, on face value. I don't have the insight to look any deeper (and I'd argue that the general public don't, either - a factor that I believe has to be considered in urban dsign).

I like the office block - though I agree that some improvement is needed at street level (the proposed lighting sounds interesting - are any night time renders available?). However, it is a big mass and I wonder if perhaps the facade on to Argyle Street is a little bland?

My feelings on the tower block are pretty similar to what I've said before. I just think it all looks a little bland, and is crying out for some detailing or a bit of pizzazz to liven it up. The small windows rising up the 'middle column' look a bit out of place in a development that, to me, has the potential to be more exciting. Perhaps some detailing on the surrounding cladding would make a difference? I dunno. I do like the overall massing of the residential element, however, as it adds a bit of extra interest.

On the whole, I'm glad this is being proposed and do hope it goes ahead. The area could do with some extra life being injected in to it.

Thanks again for posting the extra info.

Look I tell you it's amazing who tunes in to this website. Would'nt be surprised if Rem's chewing on a chicken leg with a glass of wolf blass in hand and following the thread.

Anyway socceroo I would be delighted seriously if an idea was taken and improved upon, you know .....made better. Whether it's curtain walling or copper or led's or stainless steel or whatever, we have been influenced by other architects work, everyone is.

It's taking an idea an sucking all the life out of it , making it worse that's the problem I have.

Also, PPP indeed socceroo , PPP indeed.

Yep welcome to all you new folks - glad you've joined in on whats become a surprisingly lively debate.

As I said before, I'm quite happy with the residential part of the development. It certainly isn't ground-breaking, but it's perfectly ok to look at. A wee bit more detail would be nice, but on the whole it works well with it's surroundings. I like the scale and form of the tower - makes it look taller than it actually is.

And the office part is not bad too - can see the similarities Alan, but I'm sure there are countless buildings in Britain alone that have roughly the same profile as Spectrum. But only we got da' bling-bling silver padded walls ;)



The major, almost overwhelming failing of this scheme is it's base/street level interaction. It's pretty dire. Cold, sterile and uninviting. Just because most of Argyle street is like that already, doesn't make it acceptable to continue the trend. Something has to be done about it. Granted, Argyle street is by no means a pedestrian thoroughfare, but this will certainly not encourage the street life around it to grow. The street has so much potential given it's position, size and importance, but it's been blighted with 40 years worth of shite planning and terrible architecture. If something has to be done, it has to be done now, and Cadogan Square has to help kick start it.

just need to stick the expressway underground and form a grand street to the SECC and Glasgow harbour - easy!
Fantastic idea mate - if only, eh? :)


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


Yeah Gleegie whats the Bridge like inside - it's a peculiar design from the outside - not too sure about it, but it would be magic to have a pad there :happy:

Yes, thanks Susan. Questions, if I may, :)

Why was the original curved Argyle street feature dropped, cost?
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/Taylorschematic.jpg

Also the tower seems to lack symmetry, three steps right, two left and a rather disjointed side block. Given the low height might a stepped pyramid work? I can't stress enough how bad the diminutive windows on the tower look either, particularly on what should be the principle facade, Argyle Street. All floor to ceiling glazing would improve the building ten fold.

I think ultimately the gulf in quality from office to residential is too great to bridge, it's like two separate buildings, might it have been better to stack the residential above the offices? Disappointing not to see underground parking too, railway line? "The Bridge" down the road has it.

The stand out feature is clearly the copper screen, would be great to see more of that and less of the glazing, particulary on Argyle Street.

Generally for what it does, on a difficult site, it's good news. But I do think it needs more work.


---

You'd be amazed at how few people live in the city centre, we need hundreds of these, past 7 Argyle Street dies, even ordering pizza is a nightmare. In terms of large modern city centre residentials you've got The Pinnacle, The Bridge and not a lot else and I should say from what I've seen of the Pinnacle it is particularly bad, cramped, cheap communal spaces. Heron House doesn't seem to have leant itself readily to conversion.

Internal specs are all much of a muchness really open plan, laminate flooring, beige walls, spotlights (you'd knock your head on a lampshade) and IKEA furniture. One thing that did worry me was sound proofing but apart from being treated to Dr Pressure one evening (if you switched everything off and strained) I haven't heard a peep, so either we have quiet neighbours or we make all the noise! The Bridge does have double height retail (good to hear about Tesco's), so it does have a particularly cavernous foyer and the flats are a good size. It's nothing architecturally, but the sheer bulk of it can be impressive at night, standing underneath.

I can't stress enough how bad the diminutive windows on the tower look either, particularly on what should be the principle facade, Argyle Street. All floor to ceiling glazing would improve the building ten fold.

Absolutely bang on mate - couldn't agree with you more there.

Thanks for the ZM link by the way, any others shout.

The site.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/gleegie2/cup.jpg

Yes, I have just discovered Google Earth. :)

I live in the Pinnacle. Terrible, estate-agent-speak name. The flats mid-block are claustrophobically minimum space. I bought one on the southwest corner. I'm selling up soon to raise money to build my own flats.

I tell you what would go down a treat on that ground floor of the building under discussion: one of those Japanese-style by-the-hour love hotels.

And PPP schools? If there's a thread on them, I'd be more than happy to offer my working knowledge. See, there's no sign on my forehead saying 'shoot me'. Yet.

And PPP schools? If there's a thread on them, I'd be more than happy to offer my working knowledge. See, there's no sign on my forehead saying 'shoot me'. Yet.

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=292349

There you are SolidRed look forward to your comments on this subject as it was a masive debate on here a while ago.

And with you working for Aedas, Solidred, on PFI / PPP schools your comments would be interesting.... :angel:

>good render.
>aedas are very powerful magicians.

Thanks for the link M Riaz. I started printing out the topic so that I can read it somewhere out of the office and I now have in my hands this huge sheaf of paper... I've read a few pages and it looks to be interesting. Some people don't hold back, either! Which is rather good since the general tone seems to be of people qualified to comment in this way. I'm not sure I am, mind you...

I like the laurieston gorbals towers colour scheme and the massing, agree that the east elevation of the tower is a bit messy and the base needs re worked though

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but I have little to add to the PPP debacle. I've just spent the latter part of the evening reading the entire thing. I don't run the company I work for, so I'm not part of the decision-making process over whether or not to work on these comissions.
I'm commenting on that here, I should add, because that thread seems to have exhausted itself along with the wine at Christmas.
Although I suggested earlier that I'd 'be happy to contribute', nothing specific of that nature jumped out at me whilst reading the thread.
'Value Engineering' though. I can hardly say it.
And placing everything at the mercy of the profit motive is something I've grown up with, in Thatcherite Britain. UKplc even.
Money so isn't the bottom line.
Anyone who thinks it is hasn't spent their's wisely enough.

But some of these forums are pretty tough going, huh? Easy to get shot down in flames. But don't get me wrong: I love a good argument, so long as I'm sure of what I'm advocating.

But some of these forums are pretty tough going, huh? Easy to get shot down in flames. But don't get me wrong: I love a good argument, so long as I'm sure of what I'm advocating.


he he :laugh: Solidred i read what you say about being shot down in flames, but at the same time the debates are wonderfuly charged in this forum with the best intentions for the city,its early posts for you on here and you will like as you get to know everyone on here, some days i fall off my chair laughing at the comments some of them make... but dont let the harsh writting put you off its all in good debate trust me .. although i must say Spacey, Aland D, Crusty, do get in to your head with a teaspon if you say the wrong thing about this city.. lol we all do as we have a deep deep passion for this fine fine city,

On a different note i have been trying to scan this project illustrated by Aedas on your PDF maunal of 2005 cant seem to get any info on it online.. any info ? seems its a waterfront project.

And oh welcome to the Forum Mate :)

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/3747/aedusschoolofart3kg.jpg

Yeah I know what you mean, mate. People seem to keen to jump on simple/throwaway comments (as happened to me in this very thread)!

'Tis the nature of net forums, sadly - things tend to get blown out of all proportion. I've come to the comclusion that I'll say what I feel like and if someone takes issue with it then that's their problem, not mine. Other than that, I play nice.

I pride myself on my calmness -sanest man who ever lived, blah blah- actually. After all, we're all just wee individuals on a wee(ish) rock being hurtled around in deep space and one get over the alarm that's apt to engender.
That said, I'm all talk and no drawings at present, so I'd better watch my step, what with my fondness for grandiose statements.

There's a view of the above scheme up on the office wall. I'll see if I can get some details tomo... next week (meetings in Edinburgh tomorrow.)
It may surprise some of the people around here but the practice I work for are currently trying very, very hard indeed to up their game design-wise. I'm newish there myself but I've noticed it.

btw thanks for the welcome

In fairness Solidred, i would have been surprised if you had much to add the PPP topic as it would be difficult for you to comment on a thread which was cooking real time back around Crimbo.

Also i think pretty much all was said about it that can be said apart from us taking the Labour Secetary of State for Education hostage..... :sly:

Welcome to the Forums, and yes we thump each other verbally now and again but it's all done with a bit of tongue in cheek.

I am accused of being negative on the forums, but i reckon that is because i have spent most of the last 22 years building some real crap in Glasgow. Saying that i would on a positive note say that i have been really enthusiastic about what i have been building in the last 4 - 5 years in Glasgow.

So i would say the bar has been raised. And really for me that is what these Forums have been all about - raising the bar a wee bit for Glasgow.

Now some questions for you :

(1) Have you ever in your professional life worked for Cooper Cromar?
(2) How many square metres of white power wall render have you specified in the last twelve months?

:laugh:

i have spent most of the last 22 years building some real crap in Glasgow

SO you're the bas I've been to lookin' for to give a good kickin'!

Quick, lads - he's over here! Pile on!

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/2239/wafer0zh.png
I've always found these to be lacking in flavour - a little dated really.

(1) Have you ever in your professional life worked for Cooper Cromar?
(2) How many square metres of white power wall render have you specified in the last twelve months?
-Socceroo

I'll get the quote machine to function soon enough, but not now, not now...

(1) I think they have been one of many not to offer me a job which will, of course, demonstrate terrible lack of foresight on their part in due course
(2) is 'power wall' render one of those contractor words for something an architect would specify by a different name? I've specified a fair bit of Sto on block and Sto on their insulated panels out at Faslane.

I worked (shh... just between us, mind) for Wimpey on a contract posting once. Render was used sparingly, as a wee luxury now and then.

Is there something bad or good about render? I can't say I get excited by it. Like, ever. That and panels of cedar, erk.

External wallpaper. That's what I'd like. And I've never tasted one, Pooka.

The words 'white render' are dirtier than the 'c' word round these parts, mate. Sure gets a lotta folk riled up!

What, Corten?

not concrete anyway.

Trying hard to understand the relevance of Cooper Cromar, Powerwall and this Cadogan Square article.......

Cadogan Square is good...not great....certainly an improvement.
I say build it.

Russell - I don't suppose you could put Cadogan Square into your montage alongside Elphinstone, Elmbank, and the 2 Broomielaw buildings, just to see it's impact on the skyline?

:)

Gave it a go,check glasgow skyline thread :)

:happy:

although i must say Spacey, Aland D, Crusty, do get in to your head with a teaspon if you say the wrong thing about this city

haha Mo, ya big charmer ye! You're goin the right way for gettin a xmas card off me this year ;)

It's all just a bit of fun this forum malarky, no-one should ever take it so seriously as to get offended: we're all here for the same reasons :)

Seems like the housing by sanctuary is further up Argyle street rather than the cadogan sq block ,minutes by GCC and sanctaury housings website.

The blocks oposite the concrete masses the brick built tenements ..have they not been built just recently or am i mistaken on that? ..i think i remeber them being built during the 80s by Bovis or Barrat.. i did recall syaing to myself they seem awfy cheap looking when i drove by at the time.



http://www.glasgowcitycouncil.co.uk/committee_minutes/public/extdocviewtop.asp?CID=1648&DATE=02/03/2006&TIME=10:00&DAY=Thursday&PAGE=1

Publicity/Neighbour Notification - Two petitions objecting to proposal (1st petition has 60 signatures, 2nd petition has 94 signatures). Glasgow Urban Design Panel - The application was presented to the panel on 15 December, 2005 but to date no response has been received. SITE AND DESCRIPTION Outline Planning Permission is sought by Sanctuary Housing Association to establish the principle of demolishing an existing flatted development in Anderston and to redevelop the cleared site for housing purposes. The application site comprises three adjacent housing areas located to the south of St Vincent Street and to the north of the Clydeside Expressway covering an area based around the former Anderston Cross. The existing houses comprise 495 units and were constructed in the 1960s to a modern system built format including an 18 storey tower block, 9-11 storey maisonette slab blocks, 4-5 storey pre-cast concrete blocks and 4 storey brick blocks. The re-planning of the area took no cognisance of the original street pattern and instead created a modernist open plan layout with pedestrian piazzas. Sanctuary Housing Association was selected as the preferred new social landlord by the Anderston Tenants and Residents Association in August 2003 and since that time has examined a number of options for the future of the stock. The preferred option is demolition and to aid the assessment of the application Sanctuary Housing Association has submitted a masterplan for redevelopment, a townscape analysis, publicity/consultation brochures and supplementary responses on roads and consultation issues. The plan process was carried out over a six month period and involved regular meetings with residents, a social survey and consultation with local housing providers including Glasgow Housing Association, Glasgow West, Beild and Margaret Blackwood Housing Associations. Consultation also took place with Scottish Homes, Communities Scotland and Service Authorities. The masterplan covers: the site’s historic development; the present properties; appraisal of options; townscape framework; development framework; master planning process; masterplan proposals; and phasing and programming. It makes clear at the outset that the implementation of the masterplan is subject to a positive ballot result, satisfactory public and private sector funding and receiving all the necessary statutory consents for the re-development. In 2002 consultants undertook an options appraisal on behalf of Communities Scotland in consultation with local residents through the Anderston Scottish Homes Tenants and Residents Options Appraisals Group. Four mains options were examined. These were: retention and maintenance of the existing buildings; retention and rehabilitation of the existing buildings; demolition of the existing buildings and replacement with new housing; and, a mix of new build and retained houses. The outcome of the exercise concluded that the new build option provided the best opportunity to address the problems of the existing estate and to build new barrier free houses to modern standards. The overall appraisal concluded that the very high cost of retention and rehabilitation did not provide value for money when compared to the new build option. Uncertainty over both the condition of the existing buildings and future funding for stock over 30 years old contributed to this decision. This view was shared by the tenants and residents group. In developing a masterplan cognisance was taken of local development strategies prepared by the City Council, historic street patterns, the reinstatement of city blocks, the scale of the tenemental city, the need for feature buildings on key sites and the provision of public spaces. The resultant plan proposes 478 houses with a good range of sizes and set out in a manner which acknowledges distance between buildings, the need for front and rear gardens, overshadowing, aspect, street lighting, children’s play, recreational space, car parking and car free zones. It is envisaged that the design of the housing blocks would create a contemporary interpretation of Glasgow’s tenemental heritage based around a concept of home zones.

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/3931/asmap1vl.jpg

http://80.68.43.52/News/Anderstontenants.htm

http://www.architects-glasgow.co.uk/contactus.html

http://80.68.43.52/NR/rdonlyres/FBA4D730-BE81-4B96-91ED-27AC8DD687BB/0/anderstonarticle.jpg

http://www.mastarchitects.co.uk/graphics/planning_feasibility/anderston002.jpg

http://www.mastarchitects.co.uk/graphics/planning_feasibility/anderston003.jpg

http://www.mastarchitects.co.uk/graphics/planning_feasibility/anderston004.jpg

GCC document on the Argyle st Anderston Commercial centre.

http://www.glasgowcitycouncil.co.uk/committee_minutes/public/extdocviewtop.asp?CID=1826&DATE=08/03/2006&TIME=11:30&DAY=Wednesday&PAGE=1

Anderston Commercial Centre
Redevelopment of Argyle Street Frontage
GHA Regeneration Implementation Agreement

Purpose of Report:
To advise the Sub-Committee of a proposed amendment to the Regeneration Implementation Agreement with The Glasgow Housing Association Limited (GHA), that forms part of the Housing Stock Transfer Agreement, resulting from the amended proposals for the redevelopment of the Anderston Centre.

Recommendations:
That the Sub-Committee notes the terms of this report, instructs the Chief Executive to adjust the terms of the Regeneration Implementation Agreement to remove the obligation on GHA to transfer to the Council Dalriada House and refers the report to the Housing Development Committee for information.

1. HOLDING ACCOUNT
Planning
2. BACKGROUND
Anderston Commercial Centre has been developed on the basis of a long ground lease from the Council by Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd. Incorporated within the original development were 3 multi-storey housing blocks that are now in the ownership of the Glasgow Housing Association. In terms of the Regeneration Implementation Agreement with GHA, it was provided that, to facilitate the continuing redevelopment of the Anderston Centre, the residential multi-storey block at Blythswood Court, Dalriada House, would be returned to the Council and demolished by Taylor Woodrow. In respect of re-housing the tenants, the developer, Taylor Woodrow, would provide the equivalent of 112, one bedroomed replacement houses
within the immediate area, partly by new build and partly by conversion of the lower floors of the remaining two multi-storey blocks, and would thereafter be responsible for the demolition of Dalriada House. This was in keeping with the Masterplan proposals for the redevelopment of the commercial centre as approved by the Council.
3. CURRENT POSITION
The Sub-Committee at its meeting on 5 October 2005 approved revised proposals for the development of the Argyle Street frontage at the Anderston Centre. The site will now be developed for a new office building, extending to 7,988 sq.m. (85,974 sq.ft.) net, and a residential tower, comprising 114, 2 bedroom flats. A planning application is currently being considered by the Department’s Development Control Officers. As a result of the altered development proposals for this site and a review of its overall Masterplan for the area, Taylor Woodrow has agreed with the Council and GHA that
Dalriada House can remain in situ and the future development of the balance of the site will no longer require the building to be demolished. This will enable GHA to plan or the future upgrading of the building in association with its proposals for the other two multi-storey blocks at this locus.
4. SERVICE IMPLICATIONS
Financial: Terms agreed with Taylor Woodrow for development of Argyle
Street frontage not affected.
Legal: N/A
Personnel: N/A
Service Plan: Targets/ Priorities 20: Strategic Management of Commercial and
Industrial Land and Property.
Development and Regeneration Services
PS1/DGG/cc907u10
22 February 2006

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5049584.html

Residents celebrate saving their flats from bulldozers

And the 50 mil housing development regeneration proposed by GHA as been voted oot by GHA's own votes.

Yeah I noted that bit too about the £50 million Sanctuary scheme being rejected by GCC after the residents won a hearing into it before the Glasgow City Council sub committee on development applications granted permission. It was also in yesterdays Herald. That's what happens when you don't get ex Lord Provost Alex Mosson who sits on the sub committee on your side. The fact that he described it as 'madness and an act of vandalism' that would destroy the local community was probably a clue! What I'd like to know though is in reality how much longer will the system built deck access blocks last anyway i.e what's their lifespan? They don't seem in good nick and it's never struck me as being a particularly vibrant or happy part of the city. If their projected lifespane isn't that long might it not have been better to look at alternatives?

I'm in two minds, the blocks NEED (structurally flawed) to go but at the same time the regeneration plans were crap.

I don't know what councillor's are playing at demanding 100% approval, by using that argument ANY future proposal is sunk. Why not constructive criticism ie the design/density of the new build? Sell land for commercial investment and private housing?

I've got the whole sorry story covered (www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Visions.html#Anderston), at least the council did approve Mizu, so it's not all bad...

Continuing insanity from the council. :(

A fairly mixed view on this one i would say. Nobody appears to be strongly in favour, and that is fair enough. Its a poor sort of case to defend a building on the restrictions its site places on it but some sites fight against great architecture and if you come out at the end of the process with something which at the very least does no harm then you have won.This is certainly such a site and it has to be said that many years of effort have gone into even getting to this stage and the conditions prevailing now have allowed something better than would previously have been possible. This is a difficult part of town both in urban terms and commercially and the ongoing Anderston development has been one of the key drivers for regeneration in the area.

Its not show off architecture and show off architects will no doubt find it lacking but show off architecure maketh not the city. Cities are made up of urban wallpaper than define spaces and places. Too much gesture lessens the effect of the gesture and renders it trivial. One doesnt have to look too far within the general vicinity of this scheme to find the gestural and the trivial.

Glasgow IS "show-off architecture"!

Can't be bothered reading this whole item but I can get the gist from the last few postings ............has this been refused planning approval, either that or there must be a planning decision due soon on a crap project, crusty?

It's amazing, for at that time we get an influx of clever new contributers telling us that PPP is actually a good thing or that poorly thought out, banal, dispirited architecture which hurts your eyes and has as much appeal as a three day old corned beef sandwich is, in fact, a much needed element on which a thriving city like ours depends.

In fact it is pretty good and only show off architects, that misguidedly think that no matter what the circumstances or location you should seek to be creative, contribute to the debate, aspire and do your best, would find the much needed piss poor proposal offensive

Its not show off architecture and show off architects will no doubt find it lacking but show off architecure maketh not the city. Cities are made up of urban wallpaper than define spaces and places. Too much gesture lessens the effect of the gesture and renders it trivial. One doesnt have to look too far within the general vicinity of this scheme to find the gestural and the trivial.


Outofchaosa..., I sincerely hope you are not an Architect. :sly:

think myself it's an architect, probably from one of the big commercial practices running three PPP jobs with four students and a technician because of the ludicrously low fee bid and on top of that being shafted by the contractor or building architectural flotsam that the city needs.

Finding some consolation in thinking that it's not the building that's important or that it's what the client wants and making it into he AJ top 100.

think myself it's an architect, probably from one of the big commercial practices running three PPP jobs with four students and a technician because of the ludicrously low fee bid and on top of that being shafted by the contractor or building architectural flotsam that the city needs.

Finding some consolation in thinking that it's not the building that's important or that it's what the client wants and making it into he AJ top 100.

You know its really pretty poor form that you are quite so offensive, so ignorant and so obnoxious when you make no secret of who you are. I guess thats what passes for a marketing strategy for you but to my mind its really quite unprofessional. Each to their own though.

Outofchaosa..., I sincerely hope you are not an Architect. :sly:

Because i take a different view from you? Because i have some sort of notion of the hierarchies of form and space that make up a city? Because i have seen the sort of architectural zoo that results from too many buildings shouting too loudly (Homes for the Future and Glasgow harbour as examples).

Take a walk around Glasgow. From the tenements of the west end to the blocks around Blythswood square, the make up of the city is generally solidly built and decentbuildings which are unspectacular and undemonstrative. What is important about them and what makes Glasgow is how they define the spaces around them. Glasgow is very much about the tightness of its gridded street pattern in the centre. When that is broken it needs to be done so for a reason and not simply to allow for an empty gestural whim.

I am reluctant to make comment on this particular scheme (here in any case). There are things i would personally have done differently and elements i would take issue with but i have no objection to it not shouting and bawling in an uncouth manner.

outofchaosworld, welcome to the forums!

I for one am glad that someone's come in here and put opposing viewpoints - it all makes for interesting debate.

Don't worry too much about some of the rhetoric you're being faced with, it's just the way it is round here! The internet always makes things sound worse, and the forumers here don't pull any punches.

So keep arguing your point and don't let the language/apparent rudeness of others put you off!

To a ceetain extent, I agree with what you've said both here and in the PPP thread... but like you say, there are shades of grey to all of this.

ah.... the beginnings of the P word. Last refuge of the seriously deluded.

Professionalism.

and if you going to contribute cut the patronising rubbish about tight grids and urban wallpaper blah blah, you invite negative comment and next time I won't be so complimentary.

ah.... the beginnings of the P word. Last refuge of the seriously deluded.

Professionalism.

and if you going to contribute cut the patronising rubbish about tight grids and urban wallpaper blah blah, you invite negative comment and next time I won't be so complimentary.

Well i am sorry to see your level of debate is so superficial. As i said, each to their own.

ach hav'nt even begun to stoop........ I can be even more superficial given the inclination. Downright facile, even

outofchaosaworldofflatulence............see

outofchaosaworldofflatulence............see

I have to say thats something of an improvement ;)

Calm down ladies.

I'm quite surprised that such a non-descript proposal has kicked this exchange off. I can't say that I agree with either of you, although I do understand where you are coming from in some places, outofchaosaworld. (not every building in the city should stand be a screaming, shouting example of world class design and architecture etc etc..).

However, instead of hammering this proposal and it's design, surely a smarter use of time and effort would be to discuss ways to improve on the plans we have here. After all, it's clear that some of the architects who actually designed the building are reading this thread.

With respected opinions from the professionals on this forum, surely (I hope the folks at Taylor Woodrow will agree with me here) you guys could maybe point them in the right direction with ways to make this proposal something a bit more interesting.

Obviously the suggestions can't exactly be radical, but why not throw a few out there and see what type of response they recieve.

Alan, no "this building sucks cock" comments please ;)


Cheers guys :)

...........I can't say that I agree with either of you, although I do understand where you are coming from in some places, outofchaosaworld. (not every building in the city should stand be a screaming, shouting example of world class design and architecture etc etc...

Sensible words The Boy David, but they are your words, let me remind you of Outofchaos...words............"When that is broken it needs to be done so for a reason and not simply to allow for an empty gestural whim."

C'mon, this guy is on these forums for one reason only. Work it out.

If he wants to soften his views then let him do it himself. I don't see why yourself or Chief should re-interpret his views and give shadow posts to soften his views, that is unless you agree with his views which i don't think you do.

Sensible words The Boy David, but they are your words, let me remind you of Outofchaos...words............"When that is broken it needs to be done so for a reason and not simply to allow for an empty gestural whim."

C'mon, this guy is on these forums for one reason only. Work it out.

If he wants to soften his views then let him do it himself. I don't see why yourself or Chief should re-interpret his views and give shadow posts to soften his views, that is unless you agree with his views which i don't think you do.
Fair enough matey - I see what you mean, perhaps my post was written too impulsively.

Cheers :cheers:

Cheers David,

I didn't mean to have a go at yourself or Chief, i see yourself and the other guys with your enthusiasm as the antidote for my scepticism of the Building Industry at times.

Sensible words The Boy David, but they are your words, let me remind you of Outofchaos...words............"When that is broken it needs to be done so for a reason and not simply to allow for an empty gestural whim."

C'mon, this guy is on these forums for one reason only. Work it out.



Havent got a clue what you are on about here mate, you are going to have to expand on that i am afraid.

No i won't expand on it.

You know exactly what you meant, you did after all type it in the first instance, perhaps you should expand on it or define it more clearly for the benefit of everyone else.

No i won't expand on it.

You know exactly what you meant, you did after all type it in the first instance, perhaps you should expand on it or define it more clearly for the benefit of everyone else.

I think its fairly obvious what i was getting at. There are too many buildings in Glasgow which betray little understanding of their context and substitute overt expressiveness for placemaking. I have already mentioned the likes of Homes for the Future and the Harbour, neither of which make convincing urban form IMO. I would also add Crown Street which is a decent attempt but one which is ultimately lacking and the new blocks at the foot of Byres Road which really dont work at all to my mind.

Certainly things are better now than in the 80s where the prevailing pseudo-historical styles were even more vapid, but we seem to be struggling to find a style which responds to context and yet is modern. There is a lack of confidence in a lot of what is being built that results in every element being over expressed rather than relying on the strength of an underlying idea.

So whats your point caller?

No offence taken mate. Although I will say that I'm not attempting to soften his view (I don't think they softening, tbh), just saying that I agree with some what he's saying. Equally, I agree with some of what Alan/Socceroo have said in the past. It's not a straightforward 'you're wrong/I'm right' issue... there's bound to be differences of opinion. I'm just happy to be hearing different viewpoints.

I dunno. I'm not really smart enough or experienced enough to be able to read between the lines. On face value, to me it appears that outof is putting forward an argument (whether I agree with it or not) in a decent manner.

To be honest, I've been a little disappointed and surprised the tone of the replies coming from yourself Socceroo, and AlanD.

Bu like I say, maybe I'm not reading between the lines enough or something. That's just the way it appears to me.

No offence taken mate. Although I will say that I'm not attempting to soften his view (I don't think they softening, tbh), just saying that I agree with some what he's saying. Equally, I agree with some of what Alan/Socceroo have said in the past. It's not a straightforward 'you're wrong/I'm right' issue... there's bound to be differences of opinion. I'm just happy to be hearing different viewpoints.

I dunno. I'm not really smart enough or experienced enough to be able to read between the lines. On face value, to me it appears that outof is putting forward an argument (whether I agree with it or not) in a decent manner.

To be honest, I've been a little disappointed and surprised the tone of the replies coming from yourself Socceroo, and AlanD.

Bu like I say, maybe I'm not reading between the lines enough or something. That's just the way it appears to me.


There is nothing between the lines to read so far as i am concerned. I have a view on architecture and how we make cities and i am eexpressing it. I am perfectly happy to consider other views but i will defend my own position robustly if need be. I dont understand the implications of some sort of agenda to be honest.

if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...............it's a fucking apologists, chief.

David what are you talking about it's outofthisworldafuckingquackingduck that's setting the tone of this not me

David what are you talking about it's outofthisworldafuckingquackingduck that's setting the tone of this not me
Indeed it is Alan, as acknowledged in my brief last post.

But to be fair, even after misjudging the intial circumstances somewhat, I'm still not too sure that the way you are approaching this is entirely productive.

Makes for interesting reading though, as I've yet to make up my mind on this latest train of thought.


Continue. :)

I'm still not too sure that the way you are approaching this is entirely productive

Have to agree here.

Work has begun at Cadogan Square. I work in an office in the complex (for my sins) and we're currently without daylight because of the hoarding put up by the construction workers.

Right now just the "courtyard" below Dalriada seems to be involved, with the plant holders removed and the ground otherwise being cleared. There's no actual demolition yet, which is pretty obvious I guess considering it's noticable from the ground if that happens.

I am not really fond of the new design, personally, I think it looks extremely cold at street level, but I'm not an expert on these matters (although I see some others have already said that.) The renders are great but hopefully something can be done with the lower walls to make them a bit less foreboding.

That said, it's an improvement!

Thanks for the post mate... was wondering just the other day what was happening with this. Considering it's a 20-storey porposal, it's managed to keep an extremely low profile on these boards (at least since the initial flare-ups back in March!).

I too hope that they've made some changes in order to 'humanise' it a bit more.

Well, I'm wondering what's happening exactly, tbh. I've seen on this thread a blueprint where the area right up to (and pretty much under) Dalriada is earmarked for development, but the Google Earth (at least I think it's Google Earth) image is marked with a box that doesn't stretch back nearly as far. I don't know how deep the building's going to be.

I think right now it's just ground-clearing (is that the correct term? :P) and demolition that's taking place, rather than any construction, which is why it's not being noticed as much.

As for humanisation... well, despite what I said earlier, I think it's going to look positively warm and friendly compared to the stuff behind it :D

Yes work as has started on the enabling works contract. This will involve the demolition of the (never occupied) department store element. The entrance to Dalriada will also be ammended and relocated.

The design of the building itself has been revised slightly. Height and mix of uses remain the same but the expression of the elements has been changed to integrate the tower into the whole better. The ground floor is, i think, more or less unchanged as the enormous complexity of the underground services has meant that almost the entire ground floor, with the exception of the entrances to the offices and flats and a potential leisure/retail unit, has had to be left as a way leave.

Good stuff!

Outofchaos, how long will it be before Cadogan Square actually begins to rise?

I'm really looking forward to seeing this guy make an impression on our Skyline :)

Not sure when work will start on the main contract. I suspect it will be the early part of next year.

Item 2b (http://www.glasgowcitycouncil.co.uk/committee_minutes/public/extdocviewtop.asp?CID=2361&DATE=15/08/2006&TIME=11:00&DAY=Tuesday&PAGE=1) is the application from Aedas for Cadogan Sq

APPLICATION 05/04166/DC DATE VALID 23.01.2006
SITE ADDRESS Site Between Cadzow Street/Oak Street At Argyle Street Glasgow
PROPOSAL Erection of mixed use development comprising 122 residential units and Class 4 office space with ground floor car parking.
APPLICANT Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd
2 Princes Way
Solihull
West Midlands
B913ES AGENT Aedas Architects Ltd
Floor 9, 1 Cadogan Square
Cadogan Street
Glasgow
G2 7HF
WARD NO(S) 17, Anderston COMMUNITY COUNCIL 02_031, Anderston
CONSERVATION AREA LISTED
ADVERT TYPE Bad Neighbour Development PUBLISHED 3 February 2006
CITY PLAN Principal Office Area

PROPOSALS Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a mixed use development comprising 122 flats, 11,000 sq m (approximately) of office floorspace with ancillary car parking dedicated for 82 residential spaces and 35 office spaces, arranged over two levels. The application site is a vacant piece of land between the Anderston Centre and Argyle Street, between Oak Street and Cadzow Street. The site is within the Anderston masterplan area which originally received outline approval in 1987, but has been revised and updated over time. Four phases of the masterplan have now been completed by the applicant, Taylor Woodrow, including the remodelling and refurbishment of the office building at 1 and 2 Cadogan Square; the erection of the 'Europa' Building on Argyle Street; the refurbishment of retail/office space at 4 and 5 Cadogan Square as offices and the erection of the 'Cerium' Building on Waterloo Street/ Douglas Street. The application site also received approval for a 9-storey office block in 2002.

Well I guess I know roughly who outofchaosaworld is and I know who AlanD is 'though I don't *know* him and I must say I'm in the former camp if for nothing but technical reasons but it's more than that. Perhaps I'm havering; sitting-on-the-fence; veering close to compromise and loosing my grip on drive, passion, ideals but that rhetorical divide is actually a false one, forced my the nature of debate itself. The endlessly repetitive tenements of Glasgow aren't simply boxes for the little people to be in. In their modest way they form the character of the city. Yet there are the magnificent Victorian wedding cakes the vie so much that they start blending in. I love to look at the latter but admit to getting bored with the former after a while. But they do allow me to generally live my life. Which is me trying to find a way of expressing an idea that 'average' 'mediocre' or what-you-will call it, isn't simply inoffensive at best. It's necessary.
However, am I mistaking the general tones here in implying that the Cadogan Square development is of the latter sort, can only be of the latter sort, only wants to be of the latter sort, is designed to be of the latter sort? Do I detect an unease about the particular qualities of the unassumingness of the proposed architecture rather than of the notion that it is unassuming as a general design intent?
The Boy David here is suggesting an approach to further discussion which I, personally, see as being potentially useful: a discussion in detail of detail. I don't get the gist of Alan D's approach...

I think i may have mentioned that the design was being revised slightly. Below are the current images. The mix of uses, basic diagram and massing remain the same but the elevational treatment has been revised somewhat.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n195/t-brain/ResizeWizard-2.jpg

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n195/t-brain/ResizeWizard-1.jpg

Thanks for the images Chaos.

The green tinted Clading gives the build somewhat of an unusual appearance and uniqeuness in that area.

Is the building facade Metal or Tile?

I like it btw :)

Neither its actually a kind of precast concrete type stuff (the name of which escapes me for now i am afraid).

Certainly an improvement... I'm still making my mind up on it though. :)

The residential/office divide has been lessened with the loss of the copper feature on the offices, reads more clearly as one building. That said, I felt the use of copper was the originals best attribute, suitably industrial, visually tying with neighbouring terracotta and sandstone blocks and more suited to a wet climate. The precast concrete and lime green patchwork lend an unfortunate impression of refurbished council block or new Spanish apartment complex.

I still feel the tower should celebrate it's corner aspect to a grater degree, the wrap around windows are certainly an improvement, but the effect might be heightened by repeating down through lower floors. The northern residential wing could do with being bulked out, ideally to bring it into proportion with the office wing. The effect of the small bathroom/bedroom windows is bad, they should really be sited to the back of the build, or at least use double width panoramic windows.

The copper i always felt was a bit gratuitous. The problem with the type of panels that are proposed is that they tend to render as being a bit bland, it almost looks render like in the views it has to be said. The reality is they have a really nice texture and sheen.

The northern wing is limited in height because of the residential block behind. The necessity of marketing images has caused the imaging guys to fade it out but its pretty close and the massing has been defined by some pretty detailed sun path analysis. It simply couldnt have been taller which is a pity. Architecturally i would have rather not have had the stepped effect but thats a function of the site.

In terms of the corner the way the thing has been expressed is a function of whats behind. These are not huge flats and they wrap around a core and the fenestration is scaled accordingly. The purpose of this redesign has been to up the scale a wee bit and the corner address is dealt with in a broader brish stroke by the larger tower element that is differentiated from the adjacent blocks.

Looking at the view toward the M8 the east facade has a very strong resemblance to 30 Finsbury Square, London, Eric Parry Architects.

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/newtonyman/30finsburysquare.jpg

Is there any reason for the apparent randomenss of the windows, does it relate to something?

Afraid I'm not convinced by the tower can't say it looks to be much of an improvement to the Anderson centre (which honestly, is probably more interesting to look at). It really doesn't command any presence over Argyll Street and the panneling looks like a sorry excuse for a really uninspired design.

p.s. Like the AM V8 Vantage in the foreground nice touch.

This scheme aside, what I would like to see is a concentration of residential development(s), or new quarters, rather than the isolated pockets of resi which are now appearing and springing up throughout the city. Lets face it, what is there at ground level in terms of human activity? The public realm is essentially non-existent. Same thing for example at Elphinstone or even Glasgow Harbour. Life in the city is life at street level, and many of these schemes just don't inspire that type of activity unlike many of the other great European cities.

As for this scheme, it looks like the resi and office components were designed by two different people and then joined at the hip.....there are some nice touches, but I would have preferred a more consistent, cohesive and purer approach in the architectural language.

Trees have been cut back and fence has gone up around the Anderston building, demolitions soon methinks.


http://static.flickr.com/81/214897572_c652ac1af7.jpg

This scheme aside, what I would like to see is a concentration of residential development(s), or new quarters, rather than the isolated pockets of resi which are now appearing and springing up throughout the city. Lets face it, what is there at ground level in terms of human activity? The public realm is essentially non-existent. Same thing for example at Elphinstone or even Glasgow Harbour. Life in the city is life at street level, and many of these schemes just don't inspire that type of activity unlike many of the other great European cities.

I dont disagree with that. The reality of this site sadly doesnt allow much to happen at ground level other than parking and at its extremities due to the services running under the ground. Thats even more of a pity since the previous phases of the redevelopment couldnt provide retail or leisure uses at street level as they were unsustainable at the time of their development. You do what you can with what you have but sometimes you cant acheive the ideal.

As for this scheme, it looks like the resi and office components were designed by two different people and then joined at the hip.....there are some nice touches, but I would have preferred a more consistent, cohesive and purer approach in the architectural language.

Well quite. There is an argument to be made that a degree of honesty and a different expression according to use is appropriate. Personally i would have rather seen that accomodated in a more subtle way but there are planning authorities and clients and varies other bodies floating about and they all have a say. Part of what we have been trying to do is to make the two elements sit together more comfortably than they did and i think they do that though there is still no doubt that this is not one building but two.

I think I know what it is that's bothering me. It's that it already looks dated, and it's not even begun construction yet. It's going to be such a prominent building, yet the facade is reminiscent of what you'd expect to see on a much more 'downmarket' development. That said, I do rather like the office component.

In my opinion it's not aspirational enough. The plain, off-coloured facade doesn't do the site or the skyline justice.

I appreciate that from a possible phasing, investment, structural and use perspective etc that they are - or need to be - two separate structures, however, there are some obvious horizontal datum lines (for example) that could have helped tie the two halves together in a more consistent manner, ie, at first floor level, office set back at 5th/6th floor?

Equally the scale and proportion of the two halves look very different and unless I am reading the images wrongly, only the ground floor appears to have any consistency in the use of the materials and finishes.

I think I know what it is that's bothering me. It's that it already looks dated, and it's not even begun construction yet. It's going to be such a prominent building, yet the facade is reminiscent of what you'd expect to see on a much more 'downmarket' development. That said, I do rather like the office component.

In my opinion it's not aspirational enough. The plain, off-coloured facade doesn't do the site or the skyline justice.

To be fair this is not an Elphinstone or Glasgow Harbour in terms of budget. The site is apparently much more marginal commercially. As i said though i dont think the renders do justice to the materials which have rather more about them than the images suggest.

I appreciate that from a possible phasing, investment, structural and use perspective etc that they are - or need to be - two separate structures, however, there are some obvious horizontal datum lines (for example) that could have helped tie the two halves together in a more consistent manner, ie, at first floor level, office set back at 5th/6th floor?

Equally the scale and proportion of the two halves look very different and unless I am reading the images wrongly, only the ground floor appears to have any consistency in the use of the materials and finishes.

The scale of the elements has been defined by the setbacks to retain light into the flats behind and the floor to floors of the different component parts. I would have preferred a more consistant approach but in the first instance the massing could not support that and there was a preference from planning for a different expression of the elements.

If I were ruler of the universe I'd request some real bright red cladding on the back . Like a short skirt waving in the wind, since... hmm.
Like, you don't see people who have such a division of intrest and visual reward between front and back as on many buildings. This building's location makes it, conceptually at least, a sculpture-in-the-round, yet I get the impression that the planners are regarding it in a rather simplistic way.
Same goes for the 'harmony' of the two building types side by side. Why, just because they're both by the same architect being built at the same time, do they have to look like someone's in the same mood all day long?
Of course, maybe buildings, and hence the discussion around which they develop, are much dumber than people are. I don't mean that sarcastically. Perhaps this really is true. But I have an unhealthily sentimental view of architecture: I need it to speak to me. In a complex way.
But that's just me... still, I have the right to say it.

By the way, maybe the above seems like I'm having a go at the building. Which is pot calling kettle black (the derivation of that phrase, huh?) since I'm involved in exactly the same kind of stuff, justified in exactly the same kinds of ways, erk.

Surely it would be best if we had an integrated strategy for the redevelopment of the entire Anderston Centre?

It's a massively prominent structure - large parts of it are visible from the motorway, and gives visitors the wrong impression about Glasgow City Centre.

That's not to say that I think it should be bulldozed - there are many features I actuall quite like, but I hate the piecemeal attitute to regeneration of the area.

Surely it would be best if we had an integrated strategy for the redevelopment of the entire Anderston Centre?

It's a massively prominent structure - large parts of it are visible from the motorway, and gives visitors the wrong impression about Glasgow City Centre.

That's not to say that I think it should be bulldozed - there are many features I actuall quite like, but I hate the piecemeal attitute to regeneration of the area.

There is a masterplan for its redevelopment. Its in numerous phases and is likely to take a number of years to complete. That being said the masterplan has changed a few times based on what the market can support and what is acheivable. The focus has moved from purely commercial in earlier iterations to mixed use now.

The original masterplan for the site was by KPF and it proposed a comprehensive redevelopment of the site in pretty much one go knocking just about everything done. That wasnt realistic (and it was horrendously ugly as well, these were the days of PoMo). Short to medium term redevelopment has to be by chipping away at the edges and filling in gaps. Hilton have the middle part of the centre leased for a number of years yet, the flats are pretty much there to stay and given the nature of the building its not easy to knock much of it down due to the way the fire strategy works, how the structure is interlinked and where the services run (all over the place).

There was a proposal years ago for a couple of towers where the current scheme is proposed (by Auketts or another London practice ???) that had them linked about a third of the way up like the Petronas Towers if I remember correctly.

Edit: I may actually think it was Holfords, the precursor to Aedas as they are now. That would make sense wouldn't it?

Silly question most likely-is this a replacement for the Cuprum design?
Outofchaos-I presume you are privy to the masterplan in its current form-will you be involved in its further regeneration as it were?

I dont recall seeng a linked tower scheme, that sounds like an early Elphinstone but there have been various schemes for the site, mostly fairly diagrammatic and they do date back to our Holfords days.

Yes TheC this replaces Cuprum (though they might still call it that, not sure). We have formulated the masterplan and its various iterations and we have been involved in every phase thus far. One can never say that future work is guaranteed but we would certainly hope so.

No, definitely wasn't Elphinstone, but definitely was on the current site, or thereabouts. This scheme was mooted years before Strathclyde Regional Council was consigned to oblivion.

Given the current state of the Glasgow resi market, when is the scheme due to start and finish?

Due to start towards the tail end of the year i think. Dont know when its due to complete. This isnt going for the higher end of the resi market which has been somewhat saturated. The flats should be rather more affordable than some current developments which has to be a good thing.

I have always been curious as to what the real definition of 'affordable' is. They are only £180k instead of £220k ? I understand that GH2 has affordable units as well so it will be an interesting comparison, but does this mean they are studio shoe boxes at 300sq.ft or petite 1 beds ?

I have to admit to not knowing what the figures are as my personal involvement has been fairly tangental. The intention certainly seems to be that this development is not being aimed at the high end of the market. Thats not to say its housing association stuff either but there is an understanding that there is demand in the market that it is being aimed at. Thats not especially helpfull i am afraid

S'alright!

To me affordable means stuff like first time buyers or key worker housing where nurses or other relatively low paid staff can afford to live near where they work. The benefit would be a more sustainable lifestyle, less reliant on car travel for example.

aye, the term 'affordable housing' has always confused me.

i want to live in one of those 'not-affordable' houses. its the closest we will get to having the developer admit his housing is a big pile f over-priced shit.

the depressing thing is, i cant afford to buy an 'affordable house' that would be built these days. even though im working on the design of them.

the depressing thing is, i cant afford to buy an 'affordable house' that would be built these days. even though im working on the design of them.
Yep, I've often thought the same thing. I don't know if that's a damning indictment of greedy developers or of construction industry salaries.

both, i would say.

I don't know if that's a damning indictment of greedy developers or of construction industry salaries.
Neither- it's a result of an overheated property market, and that is mainly down to Government policy. They can control money supply, taxation, base rates and land supply, after all. We're hostages to fortune (to poverty?) in terms of macroeconomics.

A huge number of young people can no longer afford a property and personal debt is at record levels - we're doomed, doomed I tell ye! Seriously though one day the shits got to hit the fan.

Going back to the new design (I've been pretty busy with resits over the last few weeks), I still quite like the building, and I think it looks better now than in the first rendering. But I don't like the colours. At all.

They're pale and boring, they'll discolour easily and they will lessen the building's impact to the overall skyline.

What was wrong with the goldenish colour that was used in the previous renderings?


Also, the way the tower meets the street is still terrible - big white panels along the street level... could you not put an atrium in there at least? Stick in some big glass windows and make it more inviting?? The way it is, people on the street will be walking past a white (soon not to be so white) wall with a tall building on the top of it... put in some windows and give it a more welcoming feeling, a human presence (even if it's just a security guard sitting at his desk) and more of a warm glow on the street at night-time.

Am I being unreasonable?

You're right about the white panels at street level... they just invite grafitti! I prefer the palette of the original design... whats with that orange band on the new one?

Going back to the new design (I've been pretty busy with resits over the last few weeks), I still quite like the building, and I think it looks better now than in the first rendering. But I don't like the colours. At all.

They're pale and boring, they'll discolour easily and they will lessen the building's impact to the overall skyline.

What was wrong with the goldenish colour that was used in the previous renderings?


Also, the way the tower meets the street is still terrible - big white panels along the street level... could you not put an atrium in there at least? Stick in some big glass windows and make it more inviting?? The way it is, people on the street will be walking past a white (soon not to be so white) wall with a tall building on the top of it... put in some windows and give it a more welcoming feeling, a human presence (even if it's just a security guard sitting at his desk) and more of a warm glow on the street at night-time.

Am I being unreasonable?


Yes. This has been discussed before. Its impossible to put anything other than car parking over the majority of the ground floor. There are major services running underground across the site that require access. There is a retail unit at the western corner and the entrances to both flats and office and thats as much as possible.

And what's wrong with grafitti :scouserd: ?

I've seen witty grafitti, arty grafitti, some excellent political grafitti...
of course, lacklustre grafitti is just that, although there's a certain pathos in moronic, incompetently dobbed proclamations of youthful love.

More life-affirming, though, than 'no parking' signs etc.

It will be too prominant a site to invite anything interesting though... unless you're interested in who's a grass, who's a bawbag or what young team shagged who's maw, when and in what capacity?

Another couple of images. These are not finished renders, just sketch views done to test the design in context.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h124/outofchaosaworld/fromkingstonatspeed.jpg http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h124/outofchaosaworld/riverview.jpg

Thanks for the renders chaos - helps place the building in the overall skyline a bit better.

Makes more of an impact on the skyline than I thought it would too - nice :)

In my head I keep coming back to that idea of a pre-miesian skyscraper - apertures in a wall rather than today's standard curtain walling. But I don't get that at all - I know inside that each of those panels is hung from the structural frame. The early twentieth century skyscrapers (by Burham, Sullivan etc) gave the impression of load bearing masonry, even if that wasn't what they were doing. Whether one would want to try to do that again is another matter. Hmm.

This in turn has made me think about the profile of early New York skyscrapers, which were shaped the way they were as a result of zoning regulations. This worked extremely well for creating a kind of hierarchy in how the building behaved at street level and above. Cadogan square, despite it's steps, rises straight up from the street, which seems to be missing a trick if the idea is not to simply extrude the plan upwards (as happens in most tall buildings). Of course, I'm sure it's come from somewhere (right to light or whatever).

In my head I keep coming back to that idea of a pre-miesian skyscraper - apertures in a wall rather than today's standard curtain walling. But I don't get that at all - I know inside that each of those panels is hung from the structural frame. The early twentieth century skyscrapers (by Burham, Sullivan etc) gave the impression of load bearing masonry, even if that wasn't what they were doing. Whether one would want to try to do that again is another matter. Hmm.

This in turn has made me think about the profile of early New York skyscrapers, which were shaped the way they were as a result of zoning regulations. This worked extremely well for creating a kind of hierarchy in how the building behaved at street level and above. Cadogan square, despite it's steps, rises straight up from the street, which seems to be missing a trick if the idea is not to simply extrude the plan upwards (as happens in most tall buildings). Of course, I'm sure it's come from somewhere (right to light or whatever).


There is something in what you say. The intention has never been to ape load bearing masonry though, however thats the sort of thing that is going to be revealed in the detailing and it isnt yet apparent in the images. It is an important point though.

As far as the massing goes i can certainly sympathise with your view. I am not convinced that it always produces something that looks sensible in New York but even still there is an apparent logic in it. There is a similar logic here but because the zoning issues are effectively at the rear it is less obvious and you dont get that nod towards an archetypal pyramidal form.

The New York way of doing things would tend to suggest a common cornice line with the tower set back or at least expressed differently as an element above. That would only really have worked here had the mix of uses been arranged differently. There is no common plinth here. There is stil logic in the diagram but there isnt so much purity in the form. That can be a good thing though, i do like it when cities through up some apparently inexplicable oddities that dont quite do what you expect of them.

There is something in what you say. The intention has never been to ape load bearing masonry though, however thats the sort of thing that is going to be revealed in the detailing and it isnt yet apparent in the images. It is an important point though.

I wasn't suggesting - and I think I made this clear - that you would want to ape load-bearing masonry. I think it's an interesting idea, just not sure how you would achieve it without doing so. I can't really think of any contemporary buildings where this is the driving idea.

Those two new images are terrific, especially the one from the Kingston Bridge. Although the first one's practically monochrome, there's a real dynamic of the site as it actually is about it and, to my mind, makes sense of the building for the first time.

The knights of the white render are swashbukling again.

That building looks 15 years old and its not been built yet. a bit of design ambision and flair please. did a qualified architect design that? seriously 7 years and then that. come on. even with the worlds worst client (did they sketch it for you?)and everything stacked against you you could maybe put in more than 5 minutes before handing it to a part 1 student to CAD up and even then they are laughing at you for being a sell out / talentless figure

Maybe it will carry the brilliant indescresion of being designed, built and demolished in 10 years.

The knights of the white render are swashbukling again.

That building looks 15 years old and its not been built yet. a bit of design ambision and flair please. did a qualified architect design that? seriously 7 years and then that. come on. even with the worlds worst client (did they sketch it for you?)and everything stacked against you you could maybe put in more than 5 minutes before handing it to a part 1 student to CAD up and even then they are laughing at you for being a sell out / talentless figure

Maybe it will carry the brilliant indescresion of being designed, built and demolished in 10 years.


Haha Tommy! Thats exactly what I've been thinking the last while, just havn't been bothered putting it into words. Just want to say I support everything you just said.

The knights of the white render are swashbukling again.

That building looks 15 years old and its not been built yet. a bit of design ambision and flair please. did a qualified architect design that? seriously 7 years and then that. come on. even with the worlds worst client (did they sketch it for you?)and everything stacked against you you could maybe put in more than 5 minutes before handing it to a part 1 student to CAD up and even then they are laughing at you for being a sell out / talentless figure

Maybe it will carry the brilliant indescresion of being designed, built and demolished in 10 years.

Hello Alan good to see you back at your mouth-frothing best ;)

I essentially agree with tommy, I just didn't want to put it in as strong words for fear of starting another 'heated discussion' with chaos.

I stand behind you, tommy!

Hey Chief dont be a sheep, have the courage of your own convictions and dont just jump onto whatever bandwagon suits you ;)

I have explained the logic behind the building as it stands. The response has been rather mixed at best but thats fine. There is a certain degree of subtlety in the materials and the detailing that gets lost in the renders (hence the Dunlop lovechild's white render 'quip'). In reality it will be much less flat but there is little point in me keeping banging on about that. We have not been going for the extravagent and the sensational and that sometimes doesnt play as well to the masses but i still think its the correct way to go.

The corner tower is a bit bland and lacks personality IMO, should be something more eye catching and stand outish features. Actualy the more i look at it the more it seems is what there already.

have the courage of your own convictions

I always do... but mixing it with tact and avoiding unnecessary arguments is perhaps something you could learn from. ;)

Hmm. You can have so much cutting edge there's nothing left to cut. No that I think Glasgow has that problem, I mean, talking of buildings being fifteen years out-of-date which buildings, perchance, are contemporaneous with the international zeitgeist here at the moment? Which ones are leading the way?

Which buildings are leading the way.

A few of my personal favourites would be the raddison, the st. aloysuis buildings (the new one looks interesting), sandy road clinic, wolfson medical centre, museum of scottish country life, matrix housing to name a select few. I think they all embody a bold design ethos, unlike sed project above which seems to blend in to the 60's trash behind it. it even makes the CC building look good. need i say more.

I would say only two buildings breach "good" and nudge brilliance, namely Radisson and Sentinel. Possibly the Science Centre qualifies, weighing up engineering failures. I would grant special mention to MCM's McIntyre and Hogg Building which although architecturally insignificant it is distinguished by being the highest quality new residential in the city.

CS is very far from being the worst new build in Glasgow, if you assess the building not on its own merits but against its contemporaries it's actually above average. Though obviously this says more of the city than CS.

It will be interesting to see just how well this stone effect concrete performs.

Sentinel's very good: it's like a free christmas tree at night from my apartment windows, but it's a spec office block so its power to inspire is limited. Radisson, for me, just doesn't get there because of the copper thingy at the front. Someone's tried very hard to do something but the detailed geometry just doesn't deliver. I suppose this will be the result of some thorny technical issue that would have cost just too much to build as a smooth sweep. But for brilliance I think of these epic projects like Sagrada Familia in Barcelona (although it's almost a pastich of mediaeval cathedral building process in the similar length of time it's taking: but that gives it this organic richness that I love in true Gothic, never convincingly rendered by the Victorians). Or there's the total artistic control (or the illusion of it) in a Zumthor scheme that's inspiring, or the total philosophy-of-the-age in built form a la Koolhass. We don't have this level of architecture in Glasgow today.

Mmmm.. I hate to say it but it is just like the 60's tower blocks in the background? Plain, simple and dull.

Could be better I must say. Without getting into the technicalities-its simply no very nice is it!

On a side issue-surely the monstrosity that are those flats are going to go sooner rather than later? The biggest blot on Glasgow bar none (that and the cheap signange on most shops outwith Buch Street and Merchant City).

I totally disagree, me and an Ozzie architect pal of mine who first drew my attention to it: those ugly '60's concrete flats that are the Anderston Centre happen to have very fine proportions.
There was a time, in childhood, when I thought that all '60's concrete design was evil and ugly. But I was ignorant. I'm glad that I've since learned that there's this extra part of our built environment that I can now enjoy. Although, before anyone mentions it: I'm not condoning dampness in poorly constructed tower blocks, zero infrastructure on the city periphery 'no-go' areas except for the poor souls who've been dumped there without being given the choice, lifts that don't work, the neighbourhood drug dealer for the children, one more VCR nicked etc. etc. I'm talking only of the abstract built form.

I totally disagree, me and an Ozzie architect pal of mine who first drew my attention to it: those ugly '60's concrete flats that are the Anderston Centre happen to have very fine proportions.
There was a time, in childhood, when I thought that all '60's concrete design was evil and ugly. But I was ignorant. I'm glad that I've since learned that there's this extra part of our built environment that I can now enjoy. Although, before anyone mentions it: I'm not condoning dampness in poorly constructed tower blocks, zero infrastructure on the city periphery 'no-go' areas except for the poor souls who've been dumped there without being given the choice, lifts that don't work, the neighbourhood drug dealer for the children, one more VCR nicked etc. etc. I'm talking only of the abstract built form.


Come off it. They are quite simply the biggest blotch on the city's landscape. Disguisting foul looking monstrosities- no more no less.
Sooner they're down the better.

Them and the ned factory. The sooner they go the better. No place for them in our great city's economic heart. They look crap coming over the M8 and make the place look very dated. Personally with me what makes a big difference is colour, I know its very base but thats the way it is. These monotone white and beige buildings all over the place just strike me as bland.

The 70's were clearly retarded but judged by the low standards of the day this was evidently designated a modicum of prestige, evidenced by the extraneous concrete detailing, it's also unusual in combining commerce, retail and residential.

Irrespective of how bad it is it's there and its staying, you can only make the best of the cards you've been dealt, even if Glasgow's been dealt more than its fair share of jokers. If the centre is to have any future you really should restore the original street plan, the present impenetrable mass of decaying concrete is leaching life out of the surrounding area.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/gleegieboy/Anderston.jpg

One of the key aspirations for the ongoing masterplan is the reintroduction of the street plan in the area and that has already happened. The flats are unlikely to come down any time soon, they are still occupied and viable and as such their removal is extremely complex technically, commercially and legally. This phase will largely complete what is possible on the fringes of the site and any further major development will only occur once leases in the centre of the complex expire (Hilton are in there along with NCP and GCC car parks).

Personally i have always had a lot of time for the Anderston Centre. Flawed as it is it was an ambitious and interesting bit of architecture. Very much of its time and anything thats of its time will ultimately become dated. Its interesting to look at the original masterplan (which was never completed) and see the full vision. Had it been completed to that plan it would have been a much more connected bit of city. Still disconnected in the sense that public space would have been above street level but with a larger development and more accommodation it might have aquired a greater critical mass.

Them and the ned factory. The sooner they go the better. No place for them in our great city's economic heart. They look crap coming over the M8 and make the place look very dated. Personally with me what makes a big difference is colour, I know its very base but thats the way it is. These monotone white and beige buildings all over the place just strike me as bland.


following that line of reason is what gives rise to 'improvement' plans from the recent past where all the city's housing ills were solved by painting the sides of some jakey houses with bright bits of red and yellow and blue etc.

proportion is the more 'base' thing than colour in my opinion and these flats actually have it in spadeloads.

spadeloads is the actual unit of measurement of proportion

I see. I like a wee bit of colour thrown in though. Glasgow can be pretty bleak in the winter, and the spring and autumn.

The Anderston blocks would suit colour perfectly well: the inner sides of the balconies almost should be in different colours. What would ruin them, aesthetically, is careless 'bright and cheery' overcladding panels. These have been used elsewhere in the city's tower blocks more to counteract poor build quality / dampness / lack of insulation as far as I know.
Bare concrete, like bare stone, has gravitas. But colour, 'spadeloads' of it, is great too.

spadeloads is also a measure of the quantity of mood. For type of mood, you have to use adjectives, of course.

Anderston Centre demolition.
http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Demolition/Cadogan_pano.jpg

I couldn't get that stitching program to download Bingo. I think the joins have more to do with me not freezing exposure settings than software anyway.

ah thats a shame gleegie, it really is a good program - it blends things together very well, and only takes a minute with no pissing about.

it also normalises all individual images to the same.

Canon cameras come with fantastic photostitch software too... makes it dead easy, nae hassle.

Come off it. They are quite simply the biggest blotch on the city's landscape. Disguisting foul looking monstrosities- no more no less.
Sooner they're down the better.

Do you know what, I think exactly the same thing of every single private housing estate in this country. If you want to know what makes Scotland such a crap country its rampant alcoholism, and more importantly, rampant individualism...

Do you know what, I think exactly the same thing of every single private housing estate in this country. If you want to know what makes Scotland such a crap country its rampant alcoholism, and more importantly, rampant individualism...

If it was up to you the only growth industry would be lift repairing.

The latter part of your post is utter nonsense quelle surprise though alcholism is a fair point. Then again the perpretators of this are probably the inhabitants of filthy monstrosities like the trio in question. Tough break but that's life.

I don't suppose anyone has a some pictures of the demolition progress?

What is it's progress anyway? When will foundations be starting?

I gather there are some major services diversions to be done which currently run down India Street onto St Vincent Street once the buildings have been taken down. Apparently the new substructure and parking fills the entire plot so it could be some time yet......

(I was of course referring to Elphinstone Place. Need to pay more attention!!)

If it was up to you the only growth industry would be lift repairing.

The latter part of your post is utter nonsense quelle surprise though alcholism is a fair point. Then again the perpretators of this are probably the inhabitants of filthy monstrosities like the trio in question. Tough break but that's life.


:lol:

We say 'what a surprise' in English by the way, just so it could go with the rest of your wee post. Unless you want to do it all in French, in which case go straight ahead.

I bet you live in the suburbs, am I right?

Oh, and prove the latter part of my post IS nonsense and not in fact the truth...

I don't suppose anyone has a some pictures of the demolition progress?

What is it's progress anyway? When will foundations be starting?

I believe the main contract has now been let and shall be starting shortly.

I believe the main contract has now been let and shall be starting shortly.
Good stuff - thanks chaos.

:lol:

We say 'what a surprise' in English by the way, just so it could go with the rest of your wee post. Unless you want to do it all in French, in which case go straight ahead.

I bet you live in the suburbs, am I right?

Oh, and prove the latter part of my post IS nonsense and not in fact the truth...

A gambling man eh.....here's another. I'll bet you have no idea about me, society or the requirements of the city from a commercial standpoint.

Your psuedo socialism is all well and good but it seems you have a tasty chip on your shoulder regarding progressive minds.

And as you have made the sweeping nonsensical assertion I shall allow you to sway opinion before being challenged.

I'll bet you have no idea about me, society or the requirements of the city from a commercial standpoint.

I have no idea about you, true. Thats why I said 'I bet' and not 'I know'. In fact, you never even answered my question! Also, I can tell a lot about your character from your various posts. What makes you think you know any more about 'society' than I? We both are members of it are we not, so we both experience it daily and so know it...

I really couldnt care less what Glasgow needs from a commercial standpoint, and believe society as a whole benefits little from the business 'boom' Glasgow has seen of late. Our 'post-industrial society' is one less based on 'needs' and more on covering up (rather shoddily) the huge gaps in income this city is famous for.

psuedo socialism

'e' before 'u' I think you will find, always check before you try and insult using big words... And why do you think it is 'fake' ? Perhaps because you don't believe it? Im sure that is the real reason, as it is the reason with most opponents...

progressive minds.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Listen, the progressive minds of today believe in a system far older than socialism, (pseudo or otherwise). They mainly take a leaf out of the book of Adam Smith, who died in 1790, almost a century before Karl Marx, who sought to remedy the ill effects brought on by Smiths version of capitalism.

So I rest my case...

I have no idea about you, true. Thats why I said 'I bet' and not 'I know'. In fact, you never even answered my question! Also, I can tell a lot about your character from your various posts. What makes you think you know any more about 'society' than I? We both are members of it are we not, so we both experience it daily and so know it...

I really couldnt care less what Glasgow needs from a commercial standpoint, and believe society as a whole benefits little from the business 'boom' Glasgow has seen of late. Our 'post-industrial society' is one less based on 'needs' and more on covering up (rather shoddily) the huge gaps in income this city is famous for.



'e' before 'u' I think you will find, always check before you try and insult using big words... And why do you think it is 'fake' ? Perhaps because you don't believe it? Im sure that is the real reason, as it is the reason with most opponents...



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Listen, the progressive minds of today believe in a system far older than socialism, (pseudo or otherwise). They mainly take a leaf out of the book of Adam Smith, who died in 1790, almost a century before Karl Marx, who sought to remedy the ill effects brought on by Smiths version of capitalism.

So I rest my case...

An inspired retort based on a typo.....yes case closed.:bash:

I fear we are both dodging questions/comments though again if you wish to detail the individual aspects that demonise our country then carry on. Your ancestors probably said the same about Marx himself.

You can tell nothing from the 6 or 7 comments I have made on this forum but feel free to think so.....

We experience the same realm perhaps doesn't mean we see the same things. I would ask what you actually do other than preach on a messageboard but it's actually not my place. In anycase I'm not convinced the old ideology of 'society' is of any merit today.

To surmise; I am surprised you feel that way about a desuetude scheme, well given some of your comments on Red Road etc perhaps not but I'm not convinced you have either Glasgow nor the people in mind when you make clear your own skewed visions.

I would suggest we take this discussion off board at this juncture, or wrap it up preferrably.

Dont feed the troll TheC... many have tried and failed to reason with Vlad... hes hopeless.

I would ask what you actually do other than preach on a messageboard but it's actually not my place.

I believe my first reaction to you was due to YOU preaching about the evil, nasty, ugly blocks of flats!

I'm not convinced the old ideology of 'society' is of any merit today.

This says a great deal about you, believe it or not. I do wish to end this, but I will not accept my ideology is 'wrong' even if I was the last on earth to believe it. Oh, and Pol, please stay out! I dont comment on how you handle arguments with other people...

This is a thread about Cadogan Square.

This is a thread about Cadogan Square.

Indeed-it's still not very nice!

Crusty-I hear you
Vlad-keep fighting the fight if you must

With the imminent demise of the hotels in their current form and what I assume will eventually be the destruction of those 3 monstrosities and the concrete governmental block opposite, this area could have serious scope for architectural prowess in the future. Let's hope the opportunity is taken.

With the imminent demise of the hotels in their current form and what I assume will eventually be the destruction of those 3 monstrosities and the concrete governmental block opposite, this area could have serious scope for architectural prowess in the future. Let's hope the opportunity is taken.
Exactly

Guys, for your own good; don't get your hopes up too much.

:(

FG (http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/)

Old & New @ Anderston's revamping. :)

http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Commercial/Holiday.jpg

Drove by this yeasterday, the cores are already at quite a height. The two cranes are visible across the city, i could see them from Rutherglen.

and red road, theres a good view down argyle street from Kelvingrove
http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/extra/a.jpg

is this Petershill Court?
http://www.dawn-group.co.uk/homes/petershillBrochure.htm
http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/extra/b.jpg

Nah, it's not Petershill Court, passed that as well yesterday. I don't have a scooby what the cranes are for.

Nice pics though!

The cranes are for North Glasgow College
I think RMJM are the architects

Petershill Court one of the slab blocks in the Red Road. My aunt and uncle lived in there. Those blocks are Westercommon Road in Possilpark.

That confused me when I saw that at first, a new development of appartmentscalled Petershill Court and just along the road a 31 storey block of flats called Petershill Court, confusing.

OH! right. my mistake.

The financial district is going to be seriously dense in a few years. I cant wait for Bothwell Plaza, remember the office element alone is larger than Aurora and 141 Bothwell Street ( Franborough House ), add the 300 and 275 room hotels + 1000 capacity function sweet and its a huge scheme.

^^Huzzah!!! I'm with you there, Bothwell Plaza will be hooge! Any idea of when we'll get designs, plans etc. for it? Anyone?

I'm hoping for a bit of height on this one. People say its a large block but looking on google earth it really isnt that substantial - your looking at an office building larger than Aurora, a 1000 capacity ballroom that will obviously need a good amount of floorspace as it will be on one level, a 300 room 4 Star hotel ( direct comparison Crowne Plaza is 283 rooms ) and another 275 room hotel ( Staybridge suits will be 117 rooms and 20 stories, Jury's Inn is 3 star and 321 rooms ), I'm not saying they'll be monsters but there will need to be a bit of height in there somewhere just to squeeze it all in.

...And are they not supposed to be having a Public Plaza or Communal Area? Judging by that I would say they have the pottential to be very large indeed:yes:

Christ never thought about that! Hmm this could be good. Only drawback is the value of the scheme is meant to be £100 million, not a huge amount of money for three large builds. They can shape it like a cock and paint it pink for all I care if its going to be seriously tall. Well maybe...

They can shape it like a cock and paint it pink for all I care if its going to be seriously tall.

Be careful what you wish for, dude...

:lol: Yeah I cant see it now! I see on the back of the 170m King Edward Tower Liverpool has a new 60 storey scraper proposed - a mix of office space and a hotel - sure to breach 200metres. Given Glasgow has more hotels in the pipeline than any other city outside London and more office space proposed than anyone except London and Manchester ( and we're close behind them in proposed build, the majority of theirs is tied up in Spinningfields where as Glasgow's is fuelled by a city wide boom with multiple developers, Glasgow city centre also added more office space than Manchester city centre in 2005 and 2006 ) why the hell arent we getting this kind of build? But in Glasgow we just get stand alone hotels and stand alone office buildings. No offence to Liverpool but surely this is viable in Glasgow too? :bash:

here here, I think it may have something t do with the crapiness of the Council, that's all.:D

In the last month alone Manchester has got three new proposals of 140m, 120m and 88m. Glasgow has equal development compared to the English cities but doesnt do mixed-use ( which equals tall ) buildings. We're now being shat on by Liverpool which with the greatest respect is the final straw. Go on Glasgow gie us a scraper or five!

Boards you're irrepressible - you just keep going and going!

Just pisses me right off and I love a good moan. All I ask is maybe a St Louis style arch over the northern end of the Kingston Bridge acting as a gateway to the city centre, say two 50 storey scrapers topped off with a 60 storey bad boy and then maybe something similar to the CN Tower and I'm happy. I still want the Forth and Clyde canal widened to an ocean trench though.

I hope some news comes soon of some new tall buildings, hopefully by the end of the year we will have some, i'm itching for some.

Yip, I'm shaking like a junky.

They can shape it like a cock and paint it pink for all I care if its going to be seriously tall.

i hear that upon reading that post, Elphinstone, ELmbank and East One have all been scrapped in favour of a new 75 storey tower similar in shape to a male penis. It will be known as the Glesga Dong. the largest of its kind in the living world. pictures on the proposed project can be found here PENISLAND.com

i hear that upon reading that post, Elphinstone, ELmbank and East One have all been scrapped in favour of a new 75 storey tower similar in shape to a male penis. It will be known as the Glesga Dong. the largest of its kind in the living world. pictures on the proposed project can be found here PENISLAND.com


Pen Island? The intarweb's greatest pen shop...? ;)

almost as good a site as Experts Exchange, available at:

www.expertsexchange.com

www.therapistfinder.com

www.speedofart.com

www.gotahoe.com

www.whorepresents.com

www.powergenitalia.com

www.molestationursery.com

www.cummingfirst.com

Had I but more time, and access to my personal email at the moment, I would have dug out the email of that list myself. It's a classic.

Had I but more time, and access to my personal email at the moment, I would have dug out the email of that list myself. It's a classic.

I got the list off a porn site ages ago lol.

Reminds me of SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy; 'I'll take The Penis Mightier!'.

I got the list off a porn site ages ago lol.

The porn sites you visit are obviously more literate and into wordplay than the ones I do!

Some people are just born classy.

Reminds me of SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy; 'I'll take The Penis Mightier!'.
Good Lord!

You may be the only other person of Scottish Nationality other than myself that has seen that sketch! Certainly the only other person I know, anyway.

Awesome.

Ahh the banter!

Canny beat the Glasgow banter... you just don't get it anywhere else.

:rofl: funny shit

Good news for Aedas :). Chaos... anything to add?

Building (http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3094561&c=0)

Taylor Wimpey appoints Aedas on £35m Glasgow project
5 September, 2007


Aedas Architects will work on fifth phase of the Anderston Regeneration programme

Aedas Architects has been appointed by Taylor Wimpey on the fifth and largest construction phase for Glasgow’s Anderston Regeneration programme.

As part of the £35m mixed-use development scheme it will design a residential tower and a commercial building for the redevelopment of Glasgow’s Cadogan Square.

The new 20-storey residential tower on Argyle Street will house 122 apartments with south west views across the River Clyde.

The design for the seven-storey 9180m2 office building – to be known as Cuprum when complete – incorporates an existing structure and new building work, and will increase the existing working community in the building by 20%.

Elevations to the commercial development will feature fully glazed curtain walling. In contrast, the residential tower cladding incorporates masonry panels with inset window bays.

Maurice Rodger, project director at Aedas, said: “Cuprum adds critical mass to the development programme and will play a crucial role in providing commercial and employment opportunities for the city. "

The Anderston Regeneration programme is designed by Aedas for Taylor Wimpey and part of the wider Aedas plan covering 3.5 hectares between Waterloo Street and Argyle Street.

Completion for the Cuprum office is expected in late 2008, with the residential tower following in 2009.

Curious that its presented as 'news' given the utter lack of newness about it but it keeps the thing visible. Mind you its rapidly becoming more and more visible by the day. The resi core is progressing apace and the steel for the commercial part is rattling up. The resi part will be slower as its a concrete frame though i do hear rumblings of them knocking up a floor a week once they get going on it so that will be good to watch. The detail of the design is progressing and it looks like there are going to be some nice details that add a level of sophistication to what has already been shown in the renders.

Theres a new slightly squashed render on aedas website under news & events, some minor changes seem to have been made again

Hey Outofchaos, just out of curiosity, were you involved in the redevelopment of 123 St Vincent street? If so, I salute you sir!:)

They've clearly 'value engineered' it to death. It looks awful - all out of proportion, tiny windows, acres of white stuff. Much, much worse than what was shown on here a few months ago. Really disappointed - another carbuncle in the making.

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

\o/

They've clearly 'value engineered' it to death. It looks awful - all out of proportion, tiny windows, acres of white stuff. Much, much worse than what was shown on here a few months ago. Really disappointed - another carbuncle in the making.

It hasnt actually changed you know....

Welcome to the Forum Susan and thanks for the images of Cadogan Sq, gives us all a decent insight to what the Anderston site will look like. :)

I take it you are a promoter of the project from Aedas ?

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/aedasarchitects/1.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/aedasarchitects/2.jpg

Looks different to me (post taken from page 2). Either way, surely you can't be proud of this monstrosity, chaos?

Oh goodness me that is ancient, it hasnt been like that for a very long time and the current scheme is a considerable improvement on that very early design. The reality of the thing on completion will prove that its a very positive addition to the city and some very hard won quality out of an extremely difficult site.

I hope I'll share your enthusiasm once it's externally complete.

The copper version was superceded with the present tower around august 2006

0uto... mentioned they were adding new detail to this design and true enough the recently published Aedas image shows a slightly amended colour scheme.

The polished concrete at the base of the tower has given way to a darker material, alternating lime green panels up the height of the tower are now all dark grey and corner windows on the upper half of the tower now seem to be full height.

The improvements are slight but if the renderings are to be believed they do significantly improve appearance. The darker horizontal strips give illusion of increased glazing and contrast with the towers verticality. Greater differentiation of corner glazing on upper and lower halves (and playing around with perspective) changes perception of height.

Gleegie have you ever thought about changing careers and writing press releases for architects freelance?

I pretty much do that with futureglasgow

Unfortunately you find negativity creeping in with most schemes, so I probably wont be winning many commissions.

There is a website for the development with some good pics of construction.

http://www.cuprumglasgow.com/home.aspx

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/Alileith/tw2.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/Alileith/tw1.jpg

ooooooh Fantastic progress so far.:banana:

Yeah good progress, although the office section doesn't look as big as I thought it would.

Never the less, looking forward to see the residential section rising soon.

Took this shot the other day - main tower core is at 12 storys now..

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y124/the_boy_david/DSC_0110.jpg

Great pics Davey!

Anyone have any idea when the floors will start going in?

:cheers:

I passed by Yesterdayon the M8 and its already quite tall, I was surprised at how quickly the core has gone up! The Office building's steel framework seems to all be in place.

Putting this here as its nearest to Cadogan Sq

Renewal of the Anderston area, past and future masterplans.

Aedas (http://www.aedas.com/html/projects.cfm?projectssort=location&projectID=390&leftnav=projects&thissectorhighlight=6&leftnavhighlight=&pagetitle=UK%20-%20Scotland%20and%20Ireland) are the architects with Taylor Woodrow as developers

Images from FG (http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/) ( news section )

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6934/anderstonor0.jpg

The central core can be seen quite clearly from Glasgow Cross. Does anyone know the current floor count on the residential section?

I'm pretty sure the core has topped out. Might be wrong though..

I'm pretty sure the core has topped out. Might be wrong though..


Yip, number 19 is visible now so that must be as tall as it will get :)

It's great watching this building take shape. I live at the end of Argyle Street, near Kelvin Way, and this can be seen rising right in the middle of the street at the opposite end. Quite nice to see what it will look like when I return to Glasgow in September.

This and the three cooncil blocks, what a stunning entrance to the commercial core of the city...Oh I forgot, there's the massive Anderston Estate to the left as well coming over the bridge. Fuck me...

Hah! For all of about 2 seconds I thought you'd have a change of heart there Boards!

The floors are about halfway up the core now. From some angles, it looks like it actually may look taller than it is... good thing/bad thing?

I think its good. The city centre looks dated as hell around that area,so its quite nice to see something substantial going up when you come over the Kingston Bridge. It does look a lot taller than it is, but maybe thats just me.

I wonder how much they'll be punting the flats for.?