Archive for urbanglasgow.co.uk For information past, present & future on the city of Glasgow, Scotland, UK
 

The free forums are now under new ownership, a full announcement will be made shortly

       urbanglasgow.co.uk Forum Index -> Glasgow Development & Demolition
Fat Cat

Copthorne/Millenium Hotel

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/new...-goes-high-rise-198668n.119502756

This has to be a joke.   I am literally lost for words.

Actually, I'm not.  Monstrosity.   There's a word.
DavidMcD316

Re: Copthorne/Millenium Hotel

Fat Cat wrote:
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/new...-goes-high-rise-198668n.119502756

This has to be a joke.   I am literally lost for words.

Actually, I'm not.  Monstrosity.   There's a word.


Its going to be a complete mess that whole area - george sq, queen st, buchanan street. Shocking
cybers

You did read the story .... Its going up to hide the car park from view. so its this or a view of a car park as the car park is happening regardless.

Thoughts ?
Fat Cat

cybers wrote:
You did read the story .... Its going up to hide the car park from view. so its this or a view of a car park as the car park is happening regardless.

Thoughts ?


both horrendous options
okaydoak

Very depressing - seriously ugly,and inappropriate - and the Herald reports today that Planning Permission is a certainty,as there were only two objections to the Application.
Stuball

okaydoak wrote:
as there were only two objections to the Application.


I'd object if I knew about it before now...
cybers

Everyone sold down the swanny on this one. Whilst everyone was distracted by the new station,bus gate and steps fiasco they sneaked this in under the radar. Remember you can still object retrospectively but the numbers needed would need to be greater.
Alex Glass

To clear up a couple of points.

Everyone always blames the Council for granting planning permission without considering what the process is. The law/regulations which set up the planning process is balanced toward always granting permission. There are very limited ways in which planning permission can be with-held but the applicant can object to the reporter and unless there are strict planning grounds for refusal the Reporter will grant planning permission. For this reason and in order to retain control of a development the planning department will recommend granting planning and try to work with the developer to bring forward a development that fits within the local plan which is consulted on every four years and sets the parameters that nay application is set against.

When the public is consulted they are being asked their opinion. Having an opinion is not a right of veto. The number of objections isn't the main thing taken into account. The reasons for objection need to be based on sound planning grounds. Just because you don't like a design doesn't mean it shouldn't get planning permission. Every one has an opinion and they don't necessarily all agree with each other.

There will always be some proposed developments that attract comments and differing opinions. We may not all like what is proposed but if we want things to change them you need to put forward your opinion during the consultation stage for what use to be called the City Plan (forgive me I have forgotten the new name) It is also important to pay attention to what legislation is being considered. In recent years the planning process has changed dramatically. Some things that previously require planning permission can now be carried out without obtaining consent from the Planning Authority(local Council).

The presumption is to grant any application and that is set by the law or through regulation which is not in the gift of the local council or the councillors siting on a planning committee.
cybers

The problem seems to be Alex ... No one wants change. They all want the rat infested tenement slums back with smog, shooglie trams and rickets.

Whilst not all designs are visually stunning and a lot seem to be more of the same as was done over there please. Change is inevitable and our generation will miss these new steel glass and polished alloy buildings in 20 years time. After all it that does seem to be their projected lifespan.
Targer

I would hope that the projected lifespan of new buildings is more than 20 years?
cybers

Targer wrote:
I would hope that the projected lifespan of new buildings is more than 20 years?


I made mention of it way way back in 2008 after almost being tempted back to the city with the Glasgow Harbour Development only to be told that sad tale of woe. The story then broke in the Daily Record a fortnight later but for the life of me I cannot find the link to the article.

http://urbanglasgow.co.uk/about506.html
Alex Glass

cybers wrote:
The problem seems to be Alex ... No one wants change. They all want the rat infested tenement slums back with smog, shooglie trams and rickets.

Whilst not all designs are visually stunning and a lot seem to be more of the same as was done over there please. Change is inevitable and our generation will miss these new steel glass and polished alloy buildings in 20 years time. After all it that does seem to be their projected lifespan.


I don't have an issue with people having a hankering for the good old days I really don't. In fact I have some very happy memories of growing up in a rat infested tenement in Cowcaddens. I also have a lot of fond memories if living in Ruchazie before that became the modern slum of the day. I hope my two daughters also have their own fond memories of the places they grew up in South Nitshill and Priesthill.

Not everything was good in the past and not everything will be good in the future. There isn't always other people to blame for what becomes bad I just want people to make the most of what we've got now and hopefully create memories as well

I had the pleasure of siting on the Planning Committee for over 10 years. I feel pride when I pass building that were built having received consent during my time on the committee.

If anyone wants to lay the blame at my door for any new building which they don't particularly like I am happy to defend the decisions I was party too.
Beano

It's like this most people don't like change, example I remember the twin towers being built and the rat infested slums in the area. I know my old granny was over the moon getting one and my dad was the same with his maisonette in Millerston street but everything has a sell by date. The towers have had their day just like Red road flats and people expect more nowadays.
I think we should make an effort to keep some of the old Victorian architecture keeping the front facade and building modern at the back just like the old Olympia at Bridgeton
cybers

Could not agree more with you both.... While we all have happy memories of our time as kids and even as young adults the reality was we lived in sh!te holes but we made the best of what we had. The new modern way of life will roll on regardless with or without us.

As for laying blame at anyones door for planning decisions ... that would be a little unfair and to be honest the only new building i do not like in the entire city is the Riverside Museum... Stunning piece of architecture but a sh!t museum.
 
Marblez

Is it r e a l l y going to be much more imposing than the glass dome on the GPO building ? or more dominating than the College of Building and Printing (or whatever it's called these days) with their large pink banner ?

I agree with Ben that if we can blend existing Victorian architecture with the more modern "glass and chrome" then we can end up with some wonderful buildings. However, there are loads of empty Victorian buildings dotted around the city centre, Castle Chambers at West Regent St / Renfield St, to name but one, which are rotting away whilst directly across the road we saved the Art Deco facade of the Odeon cinema and yet the developers have just sealed that off, left it to rot and built a 10+ storey glass box on the land behind

Another example is at Queen Street where we demolished a beautiful Victorian building, build a concrete sixties office block, which has now in turn been demolished and replaced by a taller curvy glass box.

Surely there should be more emphasis on occupying and refurbishing existing buildings rather than throwing up new ones all the time. It appears that it comes down to cost, in that to refurb an old building costs more than building a new one which is a real shame when the other "costs" are more important than the financial ones
Alycidon

It is worth remembering that this hotel will be losing a lot of rooms to the Queen Street Station redevelopment, I would think that building upwards would be the only way to retain the capacity it has been operating at since the 1970s.
Alex Glass

I don't mind defending the decisions I made when being part of the Planning Committee that granted consent to:

A) No.1 George Square (The former GPO) and the glass dome. I don't agree that it is imposing Marblez. It is set back and provides the added height without, in my opinion dominating the Square and it did have the positive result of retaining the façade.

B) The Odeon Art Deco Façade retention and the tower to the rear. This development did what no other application for this site previously set out. Set in the changing context of West Nile Street with the tower on the opposite corner of West Regent/West Nile (I was also on the committee that granted consent for that development). There was nothing within the old cinema worth retaining. It has been changed from the original set up to increase the number of cinema within the building. In my opinion the building to the rear had no redeeming features. The most iconic part of the building was the façade at the corner of West Regent and Renfield.

C) Queen Street/Ingram Street Development (former Bank of Scotland building) This development only just managed to get through the Planning Committee. There were differing opinions about how it would dominate that corner. There were also some who questioned that with so much glass was it appropriate for this part of the city? I recall the views of many people about the need for the former Bank of Scotland building to be demolished and replaced. Some even said that anything would be better than what was there. Now that the building is almost complete opinions have become more galvanised.

One element of Planning and Development is the hope that new architects are able to have their designs built. Who could have predicted that Charles Rennie Macintosh's building designs would have become so popular back in the day? I am sure there would have been divided opinions about the design of Scotland Street School or some of the other buildings he designed. It is often forgotten that CRM left Scotland because he found it hard to get work hence the reason why there are so few of his designed buildings around today.

It has been a great pleasure watching two fantastic old building on St Vincent Place which have been refurbished and are now being advertised for let. The old Anchor Line building and the Citizen building. I put forward a suggestion a couple of years ago that the Council's Property Company should buy these two buildings and refurb them and make their money back though letting these two buildings. I imagine it didn't cost as much as it did to rebuild the interior of the GPO or 123 St Vincent Street just up the street. 123 St Vincent Street was one of the first applications I dealt with as a councillor on the Planning Committee. Inside was removed and the façade retained but inside there are six floors but outside there are only five.

As a little aside, the words on the exterior of the former Collage of Building and Technology was put up for the period of the Commonwealth Games only and should have been removed. Fortunately it is still there as a tribute to the People of Glasgow.
Alex Glass

Sorry for straying off topic in my last couple of posts.

I have it on good authority that the proposed development of Queen Street Station to extend the platforms almost out on to the street will necessitate the removal of the rooms of the hotel. I am sure that the owners will have struck a deal with RailTrack to sell them the building so that they have enough money to build up on the remaining site. Failure to achieve this will result if the inevitable loss of a hotel on this site as there would be no capacity to sustain a hotel with only the existing building.

George House further up the Square did have planning permission to build up on that site and almost obscure to old College building which is listed.

The time must be running out on that consent.
Marblez

Alex, just to quantify

A)   I DON'T find the glass dome imposing, I really like it and as you say it is back from the main line of the building and as this new proposed extension is also back from the front of the building it will not be as dominating as some people think. In fact it might help to balance the height of the college across the road within the space around the square

I also love the pink banner on the college as it adds a bit of colour, and dare I say it humour to the area. I think it would be great if they can replace it with something else when the time comes to remove the pink one

My two least favourite buildings within the square, as you know, are George House and the sixties extension to the North British / Copthorne hotel .... at least I will get to see the latter demolished and finally get to see the station arch in all it's glory

B)    I agree that the brick box behind the Odeon facade is no loss, but I was disappointed that even though the art deco part was kept, it has not been refurbished in any way. I thought that was the original intention when the project got underway. Are there any future proposals for the reuse of this space in the pipeline ?
Beano

The glass tower opposite Royal exchange house on Queen street should be very interesting with the curved corner reflecting on GOMA and cone heid. So in it's own way could in fact enhance the square at night even though some might find it ugly.
Alex Glass

Marblez wrote:
Alex, just to quantify

A)   I DON'T find the glass dome imposing, I really like it and as you say it is back from the main line of the building and as this new proposed extension is also back from the front of the building it will not be as dominating as some people think. In fact it might help to balance the height of the college across the road within the space around the square

I also love the pink banner on the college as it adds a bit of colour, and dare I say it humour to the area. I think it would be great if they can replace it with something else when the time comes to remove the pink one

My two least favourite buildings within the square, as you know, are George House and the sixties extension to the North British / Copthorne hotel .... at least I will get to see the latter demolished and finally get to see the station arch in all it's glory

B)    I agree that the brick box behind the Odeon facade is no loss, but I was disappointed that even though the art deco part was kept, it has not been refurbished in any way. I thought that was the original intention when the project got underway. Are there any future proposals for the reuse of this space in the pipeline ?


Marblez your comments made me think of all the building across the city that I have a little involvement in and I wanted to take the opportunity to explain some of the issues that are discussed.

As far as I remember the front of the Odeon had to be retained but there was no identified use and I think the intention is to try and develop a use later.

Maybe I should start taking photos of all the developments I remember going through the Planning Committee when I was on it.

       urbanglasgow.co.uk Forum Index -> Glasgow Development & Demolition
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
The early bird catches the worm (proverb) | The second mouse gets the cheese (fact)