Glasgow Science Centre Observation Tower

[Gommsta]

Now I'm aware that it's apparently the tallest fully revolving tower in the world.
What i want to know is do you think it was wise to make it a fully revolving tower at all?

Do people actually appreciate that complexity? Or does Joe public just want a nice view? With that in mind, wouldn't it have been easier/better to build a tower with say a restaurant at the top that revolves? ala CN Tower but smaller?

Is there any future scope for some other type of tower to be built and if so where would you build it?

[Ahhhh]

Originally Posted by Gommsta

Now I'm aware that it's apparently the tallest fully revolving tower in the world.
What i want to know is do you think it was wise to make it a fully revolving tower at all?

Do people actually appreciate that complexity? Or does Joe public just want a nice view? With that in mind, wouldn't it have been easier/better to build a tower with say a restaurant at the top that revolves? ala CN Tower but smaller?

Is there any future scope for some other type of tower to be built and if so where would you build it?

Right next to the transport museum so people could look down on it

[Boards]

Tee hee. It's pretty cool trick the fully rotating tower but a waste of time and money IMO. I do like the centre though. Would have been nice if it was a couple of hundred feet or even more taller to take full advantage of the views of the surrounding countryside - the various hills, mountains and the Clyde further downstream.

[legslikeaspider]

Its a really clever bit of engineering. The whole tower is light enough that a rugby team pushing on the base of the tower could make it turn. Given that the whole thing rotates from the base up, it would be a total nightmare to have anything other than very basic services at the top, although I believe there's a very groovy arrangement of circular, rotating contacts that allows power to the lights on the structure and in the cabin.

@Boards, you can see a long way from it on a good day. You can make out the peak of Goatfell on Arran (must be 30 miles plus) no trouble at all.

[Boards]

I don't doubt it, but it would be even more spectacular with a few hundred feet more.

[Beardyman]

I know one of the lead structural engineers who worked on the rotating Glasgow tower and remember a picture of this chap looking at a model of the tower with a very puzzled expression and, bizarrely an SLR camera round his neck resting on his bulging naval. As I say he looked painfully confused. Around this time there was a tv programme on and somebody put its title as a caption on the photograph - "why buildings fall down". Don't know if the humour translates but it was painfully funny. I would love to post [the photograph] but suspect this may be a strict no-no.

[Beardyman]

Originally Posted by Gommsta

Now I'm aware that it's apparently the tallest fully revolving tower in the world.
What i want to know is do you think it was wise to make it a fully revolving tower at all?

Do people actually appreciate that complexity? Or does Joe public just want a nice view? With that in mind, wouldn't it have been easier/better to build a tower with say a restaurant at the top that revolves? ala CN Tower but smaller?

Is there any future scope for some other type of tower to be built and if so where would you build it?

I think you're right incidently about the complexity and people not appreciating it. I think only about 0.002% of people really care about the nuts and bolts of high-end engineering. At the weekend I was at a family event and a chap asked me how tower cranes stay up. As I was explaining (in brief format) I noticed that the rest of the people (mainly school teachers incidently) started their own conversation about the X-factor!!

Back to the Glasgow Tower - I find the complexity completely unneccsary and hence I have never bother to go and see it. I actually visited the site when the tower was being erected but did not feel compelled to go and see the finished article. I did go to see the Falkirk Wheel which is fascintating - over-engineered yes - but it has a purpose which I think makes the difference for me.

[Gommsta]

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I'm of the same opinion to be honest. I really do appreciate the engineering, and perhaps placing it next to the science centre is quite fitting in that regard. However I think the complexity/engineering behind it is completely lost on the general public. All they want is a view from the top and with that in mind a larger tower with larger viewing area would have been better for this purpose.
It may have ended up cheaper too!

[Boards]

I'd still love to see the other entries. Despite many requests on here not one picture has surfaced. Probably for the best.

[M_Riaz]

Herald

WHEN in l992 there was a competition to design a lofty structure for St Enoch Square, it was to be for a landmark . . . ''in recognition of Glasgow's dynamic past, in celebration of its rejuvenation, and, most significantly, as a symbol of the city's confidence and aspirations for the coming century.''

Response to the invitation was enthusiastic, innovative, and widespread. The competition brought 353 designs.

Such a mass assault of ideas suggests that the love of towers that lies deep in the human soul still seeks bountiful expression on the earth's surface, especially those parts of it which want to be visited by cash-carrying tourists, which is nearly everywhere.

The only pic i've ever seen of the designs was this one, which was meant for St Enoch square originaly when the competition was mooted, then it was decided to place the winning design @ GSC.

From what i recall in the press over the years was that Scottish Enterprise were in dispute with the engineering company that installed the revolving mechanism that rotated the tower, apparently the teeth on the cogs crumbled as the steel was not to the specification that originaly was stated in the planning process.

The tower lift pod design always seems to remind me of Boba Fett or the mask of the Alien in Predator.

Tower mechanism

[Gommsta]

It would be interesting to see them for sure.

Boards, where would you place another tower if you had the opportunity? North of the city?
Maybe where the Red Road flats are? Further West near to St Georges Cross? Think of the view from there!

[morphology]

I have seen a book of all the competition entry's for the tower in St. Enochs square. Some of the drawings were extraordinary.

As an aside. I had a chuckle at this picture. I love how Stallan thinks that he has discovered a phenomenon about Glasgow when its a fact that is regaled to all architectural students in their first week of class.

http://www.architecturescotland.co.u...es-jpg?blog=12

[Boards]

Seeing that picture I think it would be really cracking to have some sort of tall structure at the bottom of Buchanan Street. That's where I'd have a viewing structure, Gommsta. Wouldn't make it too high though, not over 100m.

[DMC_GLA]

Originally Posted by Boards

Seeing that picture I think it would be really cracking to have some sort of tall structure at the bottom of Buchanan Street. That's where I'd have a viewing structure, Gommsta. Wouldn't make it too high though, not over 100m.

Dixon St Tower and the tower that was going to be built as part of the Customs House Quay development would have appeared at the bottom of Buchanan Street - maybe the replacement CHQ proposal will include a towered hotel?

[Kentigern]

[david_gla]

Having not seen the tower move for months now and well past the spring opening time, curiosity got the better of me so thought I'd ask when it's going to open when i was passing by the Science Centre the other day. There were three employees behind the desk, one replied it's closed for the year, the other said we've been told to say next April and the other said it probably won't open again. What a waste of money when a simple tower would have done the trick!

[Boards]

Originally Posted by morphology

I love how Stallan thinks that he has discovered a phenomenon about Glasgow when its a fact that is regaled to all architectural students in their first week of class.

It was only when I was studying old sailing maps of the West of Scotland...

[craig lindsay]

Scotland’s troubled tallest building is at the centre of a new row after being closed to visitors again during the busiest part of the year.

Glasgow MSP Sandra White has urged bosses at Glasgow Science Centre to “come clean” about the latest closure of the 417ft-high Glasgow Tower.

The £10 million trouble-plagued structure, which sits on the banks of the Clyde, is Scotland’s highest free-standing tower.

Opened to the public 10 years ago, is estimated that the Tower has only been open for 25% of the time since it was built.

The Tower first had to be closed in February 2002 after a major structural fault was discovered, and it remained closed for the next two-and-a-half years.

It was found to have sunk because of damage to two bearings in the rotating base mechanism.

Since then, the tower has been closed on numerous occasions – including six times in 2005 alone.

It was closed for five months, from January 2005, after visitors got trapped in a lift.

A spokesman for the science centre admitted that because of “significant technical issues” it was unlikely to open for the rest of the year.

Sandra White believes the science centre management should be “more open” about the situation, given the public funding which went into the project.

She said: “I am calling for an inquiry into the whole situation with the Science Centre Tower.

“I will be writing to government ministers, Scottish Enterprise and the leader of Glasgow City Council to instigate an inquiry into this situation.”

The Glasgow Tower is not connected to its foundations, allowing it to rotate 360 degrees from the ground up.

The whole structure rests on a small base bearing, which has caused problems for years.

A spokesman for the tourist attraction said: “The tower operated on occasions last year, but it became apparent that there were significant technical issues, primarily to do with the bearing on which it stands.

“We have discussed these with the contractors and relevant engineers and are working with them towards a solution.

“The time frame is such that it is unlikely we will operate the tower this year, as we don’t want to try to operate something unreliable.”

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk:80/new...year-1.1114479

[legslikeaspider]

I have emailed Sandra White MSP refering her to my previous post on this thread. The Science Centre aren't exactly going to put out a press release saying 'By the way, our tower with a chronic history of reliability and safety issues and that has been used by the tabloid press as a stick to beat us with since the day we opened 10 years ago isn't going to be open for the forseeable future'. There's no conspiracy here, Sandra, the science centre don't need to come clean but perhaps you do since it was your SNP government that cut the Centre's funding by £1.5 million resulting in 27 redundancies and shortages of staff that make it nigh on impossible to run the tower without weakening the rest of the programme at the Centre.

[kramer81]

Originally Posted by legslikeaspider

I have emailed Sandra White MSP refering her to my previous post on this thread. The Science Centre aren't exactly going to put out a press release saying 'By the way, our tower with a chronic history of reliability and safety issues and that has been used by the tabloid press as a stick to beat us with since the day we opened 10 years ago isn't going to be open for the forseeable future'. There's no conspiracy here, Sandra, the science centre don't need to come clean but perhaps you do since it was your SNP government that cut the Centre's funding by £1.5 million resulting in 27 redundancies and shortages of staff that make it nigh on impossible to run the tower without weakening the rest of the programme at the Centre.

Did it not have these problems long before the SNP were in power?

I was shocked to learn it has been open 25% since it was built, I thought it had virtually been shut since the day it opened (if that makes sense ).