I went along and had a look at the application on Friday afternoon on my break - only had half an hour before the planning office shut, and I was surprised to be handed a fairly thick folder, so only had time for a cursorary skim through all the material.
But basically, it consisted of the usual - a glossy colour presentation from the architects outlining the case for demolition and the case for the newbuild, with the predictable sunny artists impressions. Two visual surveys of the building, one from 1994, one from 2006. Thick pile of plans.
Architects are Keppie (as in Honeyman, Keppie and Mackintosh, I presume?).
They argue that the current scale and massing of the
garage is out of step with the 4/5 storey tenements
around it, so this is justification for a similarly
scaled new build. Or, to use their phraseology, to
"restore the urban fabric" of the block. Never mind the fact that
the Western Baths/Salon block opposite is mostly 1-2 storeys in
height... Anyways, they propose 33 flats, and another
few penthouses and mews houses.
The garage is said to be of no use to anyone either in its current condition or as a facade retention. Along with
the usual architect's bumph about city plans and aspirations, this is supported by two
reports. The first one was carried out in 1994, the
second in 2006. Both are *visual* surveys only of the
condition of the building. They appear to show that
the building is formed of the ceramic tiled facade,
supported on a steel-framed, concrete front, with
concrete floorpans supported on steel columns behind,
some parts of which have elegant exposed steel roof
trusses. Later alterations are evident to some parts
internally.
The 1994 report concludes that the building is in
"fair" condition, but that there is much evidence that
the steel reinforcement in the concrete is rusting in places,
causing the concrete to expand where this is happened
- efectively rotting from the inside out.
This was due to rainwater ingress (broken drainpipes
etc) and car cleaning operations within the building,
where the drainage was largely faulty. Some cracks in
walls were evident, and the steel frame within the
main facade was rotting in places, causing the
concrete to expand and crack the tiles in places.
The usual options are given - the building has no use
for Arnold Clark anymore, and is claimed unsuitable for rent
to other commercial concerns due to both its condition
and layout, with concerns over whether the floor pans
are capable of their originally designed level of weight-bearing
anymore.
Facade retention is ruled out because the steel frame
would need replacing, effectively meaning that the
whole thing needs dismantling and rebuilding, with no
guarantee the tiles won't all break anyway. So they
say that would effectively amount to demolition
anyway.
The building has no known architect or contractor,
according to the supporting documentation, so cannot
be ascribed as a fine example of a significant
person's work. Odd, took me all of ten seconds to look
it up in the Dictionary of Scottish Architects and attribute it to
this chap:
http://www.codexgeo.co.uk/dsa/architect ... id=M003092
Moreover, it says there that:
"His practice was predominantly industrial with a
preference for polychromatic effects. The Botanic
Gardens Garage suggests he was not without ability."
This seems to be another case of architects proposing a newbuild, rubbishing what is there by repeating
over and over that it has "no particular architectural
or historical significance" in the hope that the
planners will take it as gospel - they say this quite
a few times in the report, also suggesting that its
importance has diminished since listing in 1989, for
no particular reason.
The 2006 inspection is actually much more optimistic
in tone, despite being only two pages. It suggests
various ways in which the actual condition can be
investigated, and even mentions having consulted the
Mitchell for plans - apparently, a first floor plan
there mentions the Hennebique word! The report
suggests this might be in relation to a back wall
which is of reinforced concrete.
Interestingly, there is no evidence that it has been
marketed to third parties, who might want to invest in
retaining the facade - but then we know that doesn't
seem to matter with GCC anymore (see Govanhill Picture House!). Because it's not of use to Arnold Clark anymore, because it's not viable as a let in its current condition and because it's considered too expensive for Arnold Clark to come up with a scheme for flats that retain the facade, they effectively write it off. But GCC's own guidelines (HER 2 in the city plan), Historic Scotland's Memorandum of Guidance, and national NPPG policies all state that listed buildings can't be demolished without extensive marketing taking place to ascertain whether any third party is out there who might have a more sympathetic use for it. Only it's financial viability to Arnold Clark as a let or rebuild seems to have been considered.
The cost of repairing it to a shell was given as 3.341
million. Newbuild is 6.785 million - I think this was
complete newbuild, if it was, it's interesting that no
figure was given for newbuild incorporating facade.
One last thing - the glossy architect's document claimed that
Arnold Clark took steps in the light of the 1994
structural report to alleviate matters. The 2006
structural report, however, notes that "no remedial
work" had taken place after the earlier report was produced. Hmmm....