"Opting for a contemporary interpretation of its classical surroundings Holmes Miller’s design..."

Ah, the modernist brigade strikes again. Here we have an UNCOMPLETED design. Why not complete it in the same style as the rest of the EXISTING buildings?

This is an example of urban vandalism. The reason for the 'contemporary' interpretation is because 1. It's cheaper and 2. The architects of today are to lazy/untalented to match the ones of the past.

There's plenty of places in Glasgow for 'contemporary interpretations'. Why must if be imposed on an already existing area with its own established classical character?

Oh, and might have guessed there'd be some zinc in there. Can't have slate roofs. Nah, gotta be zinc.

The CMB approve of the zinc and would encourage the use of concrete in lieu of sandstone. We would comment further but as there are no images of the proposal an informed decision on how much more urban vandalism is required to pass our standards is not possible.

#1 I'm sorry but that is a completely ignorant thing to say pertaining to architects of today, and I would actually contest that point. Have you worked in a current day architecture practice, or have you ever done any actual research into the roles of contemporary architects in relation to architects of the 19th century? I highly doubt that you have. I would agree that due to the nature of the area, and the fact that we see some of the finest examples of Georgian and Victorian townhouse architecture in the UK that the project requires a sensitive approach. However calling Architects of today lazy is unforgivable. Going through 7 years of training, through several different modules including Structural design, Environmental design- which relates to light, acoustics, environment and sustainability- History of Architecture and Urban studies; yes believe it or not Chantelle, Contemporary architects do indeed study, extensively I should point out, the architecture of the past and how to be sympathetic, they also need to practice in a Principles of construction module, in which is all about keeping a building dry and air tight. And then finally they have to have the flair, and the drive to commit to ridiculous hours and financial hardship. This is just Architecture school. Then in practice you are given a poor salary, to begin with, considering the length of degree, and are tasked with continued development and learning. And you call them lazy? In contrast because I have written a dissertation on this matter, I can assure you that although creatively Brilliant, many of the architects in Glasgow of the 18th and 19th centuries (not so much the early 20th century) did not require nearly a quarter of the knowledge current "lazy" architects need to practice today. In fact, even if you go to the Mitchel library and study the old plans, you will see a complete lack of structural, environmental and contextual detail. The true nature of the name 'Architect' was lost during this period. I am not criticizing these Architects, but more your appreciation and insulting ignorance to Architects of today.

I'm sure I will be branded as the title of 'lefty modernist concrete brigade title.
P.s this development would probably more likely fall under post modernism.

Thanks

Oh I forgot to mention that I do however agree with you that architecture of today is too focused on budgetary constraint.

The pressure is really on Holmes Miller to produce something of subtlety and sensitivity with high quality materials and detailing. This is a site which cannot absorb anything less than first rate.
Their Minerva St housing was fairly competent, but on the other hand this practice is responsible for the thoroughly depressing Oatlands development, a project which has the look and feel of a future slum.
Most architects would give their eye teeth to be involved with that site so let’s hope for some of the Minerva and less of the Oatlands.

Just a thought, but maybe UR should give readers a clue where this development is.

Big Chantelle,

Maybe not embarrass yourself by criticising a design that you obviously haven't seen.

A cursory glance at the GCC report allows one to note that the competing bidders were requested to make a modern interpretation to Charles Wilson's vision. However, like many a ukip candidate at the GE, it looks as though BC may have been hacked...or certainly I hope that is the case. BC has often said that it’s not all about what people think of each other and their predispositions but a forum to discuss proposals as presented, as there are no proposals in this instance it would be illogical for BC to get so bent out of shape over something that we don’t know anything about. So I would concur with those who engaged their brain before their fingers and say; it's probably best to see what the proposals look like before sticking the boot in, or otherwise. Great site, great opportunity, no reason why there shouldn't be something quite special proposed. The increased density and very high potential for developer profit would justify the use of high quality materials and design quality. After all in this location the marketing is going to be all about “timeless elegance” and the likes so they can hardly (surely?) try to sell an absolute dog of a building. I took a lead from your post Roddy and took a wander round to Minerva Street at lunchtime. It is quite handsome and responds well to its historic neighbours. It's a pity that it's something of an island between some big retail sheds and business units but in a more complete setting such as Park Circus it would work better still.

Ah modernish, yet another comment by you which deals with what I have said.

Why not use the comment section to articulate your views?

And I'll comment on anything I like -- the mere fact that the original, uncompleted park circus is not being completed as it was (the architects own words testify to this) means I will not approve of it. Simple as that.

@#9 - I actually went to great lengths to avoid commenting on your views, but you can read into what you want. I'll wait to see what the proposal is before commenting. You can tear into me at that point, but I'd be grateful if you could hold off until then. Many thanks.

Ahh Big Chantelle, ignoring Gavin Fraser's intentionally are we?

Looks like it Perry.

Dear Gavvers,

I read your essay and was greatly amused. I should have, but I couldn't really let it pass without comment.

'Contemporary architects do indeed study, extensively I should point out, the architecture of the past and how to be sympathetic', - Wow! Gee whiz! Is that it? Is that not the Town Planning course you're talking about? How about heterotopia or even parasitism for that matter?

'Going through 7 years of training' - Shockarooney! As long as that? Awwhhhh!!! Boo Hoo!!!!!

'many of the architects in Glasgow of the 18th and 19th centuries (not so much the early 20th century) did not require nearly a quarter of the knowledge' - What? Were you there? Are you sure it wasn't quite 5/16ths? So you're saying architects like Greek Thomson and William Playfair were just lazy shits then? Have I got that right?

'I have written a dissertation on this matter' - Oh, sorry, I must bow to your clearly superior knowledge then. Golly - a dissertation? Is that something important? Big, like?

In fact, even if you go to the Mitchel [sic] library and study the old plans, you will see a complete lack of structural, environmental and contextual detail. - A complete lack? I seem to recall lots of feet and inch dimensions of timber and steel sections from Dean of Guild drawings say by Honeyman and Mackintosh et al. I take it your P.I. allows you to do the same?

I take it you missed the afternoon they did the 'module' on humility then?

Astonishing really, come to think of it, just how great you'll be! Certainly one to watch with all that knowledge! ;-)

@Perry Mason said "Ahh Big Chantelle, ignoring Gavin Fraser's intentionally are we?"

Yes would be the answer to that.

After the 'looks as though BC might have been hacked....." comment, I thought, why bother reading the rest of this diatribe. It's already meant to be condescending. But Gav knew that. I'm sure the rest of it was world class lefty archy-talk and I'm sure the rest of the Motherwell polytechnic school of concrete modernists will indulge him.

Ah James you've actually amused me in a good way. 7 years is a long time, and it is intensive. I'm not sure if you are an architect yourself, or been through any stages of Architecture school so I dare not comment. However it is that very statement of sarcasm in relation to workload that trivialises Architecture as a career, and rationalises peoples perceptions that architects are lazier today than they were of the past.

What do you think by the way? Are architects of today lazier than in the past? After all, that was the basis of my comment. (i'm genuinely interested)

Also my whole comment was surrounding the argument that architects of today require a more diversified appreciation of architecture than 200 years ago. In relation to the 'quarter of knowledge', surely you understand that I was speaking figuratively. And I never once called architects of the past lazy. I stated the dissertation fact to inform; in this case chantelle, that I wasn't pulling my opinion out of no where.

Astonishing really that we even have young creative people willing to go through Arch school when we have people in which enjoy making a mockery of their work and career.

Chantelle have you mixed up your comments? I'd advise you look over your own first comment to the 'diatribe' towards contemporary architects.

Dear Gavin,
I have to say, i don't really know what it is you're on about. I suspect we live in two different world views. I do not recognise much, if anything, of what you are trying to say. I guess we have completely different 'values' then. Something that is not so measurable or tangible. I am not interested in others perceptions of architects, laziness or knowledge, whatever all that is etc. All i know is i have worked now for over thirty years post 'education' and regard what i do as vocational and not a 'career' whatever that is. yes, i am a registered architect.
My mocking was aimed at what you were arguing, not architects work or career.

All the best.

#17
Perhaps i'm just a naive youngster; probably. And this is probably the case, our difference of views is apparent. Oh well. And fantastic, do you still practice?