Page 2 of 3

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:42 pm
by Squigster
I stayed in student halls at 8 Park Circus, and the views from the top floor were absolutely stunning. The current residents wouldn't be best pleased if they built flats which would totally ruin the view from the lower floors. (The halls were sold off and converted to posh flats).


PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:03 pm
by Pgcc93
ozneil wrote:Its terrible!!! It has to be stopped!!!

I think Page & Park should turn over a new leaf!!!

In late 60's Parking meters were banned because it would bugger up the street scape & also bugger up my parking!!!

Sheesh!! this takes banal architecture to new heights or should that be lows.
I thought you'd at least require an 'O' level in basic Technical Drawing to be an architect these days, obviously not.
This is typical Etch-A-Sketch mediocrity replicated everywhere you look.
It's about time they moved on dontcha think why not try Spiro-Graph for a change guy's there's a CAD plugin if you google for it :roll:


PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:11 pm
by cataclyzm
I like it.

I like modern intermingled with older and I think they can compliment one another. One adds to the other in this development and I think it works aesthetically.

I'm not an architectural snob, just as long as they don't destroy what already earned its place to be there. ie. what's happened in the east and north of the city in the last 40 years.

I don't think that one part of the city can be exempt from change and the poorer districts sole victims to the irrascible changes of GCC.

I think that St.Vincent street Church by Thompson is more beautiful because of the glass towers around it.


Re: errr

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:31 pm
by HollowHorn
cataclyzm wrote:II think that St.Vincent street Church by Thompson is more beautiful because of the glass towers around it.

You two may have a valid point there, Bobby me boys, the rest of your post is just stirring the keech ::):

PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:49 pm
by cataclyzm
I never thought about that until you said it. Strange.

I do sometimes have a chip on my shoulder - but I am human. I am very conscious of things being equal and socially fair.

I have an authentication certificate somewhere. Maybe you'd like to see it?



PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:10 pm
by little lane
Mori's post shows two very different proposals.

I have to say I quite like the bottom one, with the wavy sandstone / glass front.
I know it's totally nothing like it really, but it reminds me of the front of the Glasgow School of art with the big windows like that!

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:03 pm
by potatojunkie
little lane wrote:Mori's post shows two very different proposals.

I have to say I quite like the bottom one, with the wavy sandstone / glass front.

Aye, they've at least made some effort to design something that'll fit in with the surroundings. The other one's a horror, though. Who keeps designing houses that look like stacks of cargo containers? Why haven't they been killed?

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:10 pm
by crusty_bint
I have to say Im still not entirely convinced this new proposal does "fit in with the surroundings", Park Circus is not made up of bowed tenements like the majority of Glasgow, they are subdivided townhouses and so of a very different form to the that suggested in the new proposal. Just doesn't quite work for me. Can't argue with the pallette though!

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:04 am
by Mori

Controversial plan for Park Circus could finally be given go-ahead

A controversial plan for a residential development in an internationally-renowned conservation area could be given the go-ahead today, five years after a public inquiry rejected it.

The Stewart Milne Group wants to build 107 apartments and a 115-space underground car park in Glasgow's Park Circus district, widely acknowledged as one of Scotland's Victorian jewels. The city council is recommending that the £15m scheme is approved by its Planning Committee today.

A previous bid by the firm was denounced as "vandalism" by some councillors, while Historic Scotland and the Architectural Heritage Society had also objected.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:39 pm
by JayKay
TV news report on it here

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:59 pm
by My Kitten
If there ever was a helping hand for voting decision making.....

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:17 pm
by My Kitten

A £15MILLION plan to build more than 107 flats in one of Glasgow's conservation areas has been approved - but one politician said the decision would have the original architect "turning in his grave".

The comment was made after the city council gave planning permission for 107 flats in a curved block with a copper roof in Park Circus Lane, near Charing Cross.

Park Circus was designed by Charles Wilson around 1850, but after the new scheme was approved, former Pollok SSP councillor Keith Baldassara said: "Charles Wilson would be turning in his grave if he thought this new building was going to be completed with a copper roof."

And former Hillhead councillor Niall Walker shouted at the planning committee: "You should be ashamed."

It was the second time the council had given permission for a scheme at the site.

The first was in July 2001 when the Stewart Milne Group was told it could build 100 flats and six mews houses.

However, the council decision was overturned by the Scottish Executive following a public inquiry in April 2002. Because the land is owned by the council, this latest decision will also have to be approved by the Executive.

The flats will be built on empty land intended to be incorporated into the original scheme. Objectors say the area has foxes, squirrels and birds, but the council says the foxes will be moved to a new location before work starts.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:35 pm
by mr moto
you can always count on the good old glasgow city council :evil: :twisted:
this truly is nothing short of vandalism . sickening . :x

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:38 pm
by Socceroo
£15 Million for 107 Apartments is about £140,000 build per unit.

Say within £15 Million is £5 Million for the land = £10 Million build cost.

£10 Million build cost = £93,450 build cost per Unit = cheap and tacky.

So if they sell the Apartments for £300,000 - £140,000 = £160,000 x 107 = £17,120,00 profit

It is / was Council Land. Often wondered why the Council do not do some in house Developing and realise £17,000,000 for the City...?

Or do a better quality build and make about £12,000,000? Nah just take the £5,000,000 quick cash and run.....idiots.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:17 pm
by Graham
stinkpad wrote:It's been a gap site since it was built as the developers ran out of money in the 1850s.

More likely a result of the collapse of the City of Glasgow Bank in 1878. That was responsible for a lot of unfinished building work around that time with. For example, tenement blocks that start out with fancy stonework and suddenly change to a much simpler style halfway through as the builders either ran out of money or went bankrupt and the project was taken on by others.