Static , plodding and lumpen. The designers have been paying far too much attention to the worst that Glasgow Harbour has to offer. Not good enough for a site as important as this.

"Concrete modernist lefty rubbish"... I hear someone say.
Picture 2 being a particularly splendid example

Whereas visual veticality of the western elevation is interesting, the eastern section close to the Kingston Bridge is poor- bolder verticality is needed on that side as a buffer to the motorway; not only for practical reasons but also to alleviate the oppressive presence of the motorway in that area. It was an opportunity to somehow reclaim the space for human-social purposes- instead we get a small glass box for cars? I can't agree that its designers have been 'paying too much attention to the worst that Glasgow Harbour has to offer'- Dandara seemed to have heeded the calls for mixed usage in the scheme- that is a positive. But Roddy is right in that it lacks ambition for such a potentially key nodal site- but that seems to be where we are at present ( not only in Glasgow but in the UK in general): ambition is at a low ebb & that is a consequence of our paucity of expectation, such as..."Well at least its better than a horrible gapsite"- this I guess is something we're all guilty of.

I really don't see any substantive difference between Seifert's late 60s DAZ and today's OMO. Compare and contrast. See how far we've come...

https://archaeologicaldrift.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/anderston1.jpg

There may not be significant substantive difference in terms of stylistics- but aesthetics apart- the BREEAM certification system does insure modern buildings are designed with superior energy efficiency than in the 60's. If Dandara use a higher end finish than they did at Glasgow Harbour then they will certainly outlive the cheaply made Anderston project.

That Glasgow Harbour finish of white-render & ceramic tiling looks badly dated already- lets hope for a vastly improved end-product.

I take your point about technology re fabric performance and longevity of materials, (however I think we will still demolish this proposal in 50 years time), but belying the similar homogenous appearance of these images and Seifert's demolished dystopia (after Corb's Vers une Architecture), they raise an obvious question - do society's architects no longer have a single 'structural' idea about high density housing that will garner a sense of community and place, or give expression to any collective will? Is the great social experiment well and truly dead? As Thatcher's children ('there is no such thing as society') living here in this outpost of empire are we all now just individual consumers of smart technology and that's about it? Worker bees in a North British hive (well, it certainly doesn't say Glasgow to me). We are born, we live, we get our smartphones strapped onto us, we pay our mortgages, we die.

I mean, concerning the absence of any positive ideology when looking at these images they are well and truly wholly vacuous. So, if absence of something has meaning, then it begs the serious question what is the meaning of people's lives in this place?

Any grand progressive idea for society has been weakened by the rise of a homogenized monoculture that emerged out of corporate globalization; it's a 'collective' vision has also been subverted by the consequences of the individualistic doctrine of Thatcherism-Neo-Liberalism that has fragmented the social contract; lastly the positive vision of society has been undermined intellectually by the post-stucturalism-modernism of Althusser, Derrida, Jean Baudrillard etc that has questioned the hegemony of absolutist knowledge-value systems- hence our present neo-Nietzschean pluralist relativism. Can we have collective will in a plural society?
The international style- arguably an architectural representation of globalized capital- has been with us since Raymond Hood's New York Mcgraw-Hill building or PSFS Building in Philadelphia & of course later with Van der Rohe's Seagram Building in 58' so none of this is nothing new- for me in merely begs the question in a plural relativistic culture that negates hegemony how has the hegemony of global capital endured so long (without going back to old Marxist analysis of infrastructure-superstructure models)? In terms of living with meaning- that is a question that must go deeper than just how we design buildings (design-architectural practice must emerge out of, be inspired by & reflect deeper structures of meaning that contain it)- but how do we recover individual meaning that speaks collectively to us all? Personally the individualistic models that prevail at present will need to be reviewed in terms of their long term human-ecological consequences- but not to be replaced by the old collectivist models but something that includes the needs of the individualist doctrines with the 'higher social needs' of a more advanced culture: how would the built environment reflect that form of culture? The present milieu is merely a historical blip or kink that will pass ( let us just hope the sterilized barbarism of individualistic extremism does not destroy civilization before then)- but it is difficult not to be cynical but in this period of global capitals hegemony we must preserve some immunity to pessimism in order to have the energy to 'resist' it before it finally collapses.

Wonky, I wonder if you'll be shot down here for the mortal sin of using 'big' words. I guess you know, you're not meant to think, or question, just consume.

Anyway, if the architecture of the built environment is a direct expression of our politics, our society, and our values then in this example it is perhaps painfully so. Being a simple man, I have to ask whatever was wrong with the scale and form of the traditional tenement that provided a streetscape, a place, a community, a garden, identity, a neighbourhood of a city? All that boring stuff.

Yes, there is a car showroom and shops. It's what's called 'mixed development' and we're all supposed to go woop-de-dooh! But, whitaboot the gairdens? - So much for agriculture putting the 'culture' into culture then. Nope, society is way too smart for that. What a load of pap we have been fed. Never mind a 'grand progressive idea' - even a wee single one would have done in the instance of this proposal.

Public infrastructure and collective effort should not just be sold off to private capital that can ride on the back of it for short-term gain. It could be said to them, 'Go build your own city, then build whatever blocks you want. Make sure though and have sufficient funds to police the fall-out.' This is truly parasitical architecture. I see no benefit to the host whatsoever.

But I am afraid to say that the collapse of capitalism has been foretold more times than I've had hot dinners - so I'm not holding out much hope there, indeed, I find no personal salvation in 'politics', at all for that matter. Or, to finish, as yon philosopher Neil Young says:

'I could live inside a tepee
I could die
In Penthouse thirty-five...'

Big words are fine as long as it all makes sense. Unfortunately both of you often trip over into existential clapatrap , so I guess you must be tutors?

Unless of course both posts are meant to be a joke, in which case very good.

#10 My point exactamundo! - Just yous eat yer cereal!

Clapatrap? Am i missing something? Haven't heard that before and there was me thinking I was speaking plainly!
#11 Well, i am serious.

Anyway, as an aside, here's an interesting commentary on the more global view of 'things', or political philosophy if you prefer, of which 'architecture' is undeniably a part.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/karl_marx_was_right_20150531

Meanwhile back in the real world.....

Its far from perfect, but id say its an improvement on the previously approved scheme...
http://www.glasgowarchitecture.co.uk/city-wharf

not sure what is worse - the architecture proposed or the pretentious epistle from wonky. Look beyond the expressway on the north side at Anderston and you'll find some good examples of design that take account of the local scale and street pattern and provide high quality, attractive homes, (flats are homes as well as back and front garden hooses). there is an almost total lack of imagination in use of materials etc. TWO words - just awful! another TWO words - not Glasgow.