Schadenfreude will blossom profusely the day that the build to rent bandits finally understand the implications of being a landlord in perpetuity. Capitalism will eat itself!

The design looks scared of its own shadow -- probably literally.

Heavy on detailing -- complexity / cost introduced for little effect.

Tower is 10 storeys too low to make the impression it needs to dominate the M8 -- same issue with the other blocks that front the motorway. They should be taller to reduce the influence of the road on the area. Electric vehicles will soon be with us and the M8 histrionics can be forgotten about.

Much better this future than the trouser snakery being carried out by the Anti-Destination League / Transport 1400 and their never ending roadworks. All with an aim of diminishing the importance of the road so that they can put in a couple of roundabouts / few trees and make it more like East Kilbride.

Not good.

#2 Agree. Why are "tall" Glasgow developments often in fact wider than they are tall? Why not use up half the space and build higher? This location in particular next to the M8 would benefit from that. It would also help reduce the unending urban sprawl that we see across Scotland eating into the greenbelt, when the government is committed to tackling both climate and nature emergencies.

We seem to be suffering from bloated tower syndrome in Glasgow at present (see India St,Blackfriars/Love Loan/ Buchanan Galleries proposals). Towers are not being designed for their elegance or the way they break the skyline but by how many rooms/single aspect flats can be shoe-horned into a vaguely square footprint. Slenderness ratio of the tower component seems to be the last thing on the designers mind here.

The public square here is a mistake that will very possibly remain unquestioned by City Design governance - why here and why in the form that it takes? Why not follow the building line established by the scheme under construction. In other words, there is no strategic purpose for a public square and one which is open on 2 of its sides - just doesn't work.
There are so many questions about this scheme that are not addressed by the consultation boards -
'how active is the ground level?'
'what is the quality of the open space(s)?'
'how does the podium car parking work and will it lead to blank facades (as at Buchanan Wharf) at the openings in the perimeter block?'
and just what does 'setbacks creating the townhouse effect'... mean.

The ASL/MVRDV District Regen Frameworks have promoted this district as one that can absorb some height (I agree), and their visuals have conveyed a lively and diverse, yet somehow human-scaled quarter of towers and plinths. This is certainly not that, and proof positive that we need a coherent tall building policy given that the herd mentality of developers means that if this passes muster, others of similar poor quality will inevitably follow.

PS - The linear public park will need to be something quite ,quite special to compete with the dreich undercroft of the adajcent motorway. An undercroft which incidentally is subject to guidance in the local DRF as well.

Podium parking -- Glesga does not have the desire or the economics to build proper basements.

Cheap / low rent solution to deliver the much needed parking capacity for the development.

A better solution would have been to build a multi-storey unit and placed it in the shadow of a taller set of residential towers.

Or kill two burds with the one stone and put the parking in the M8 undercroft -- there would be a certain circularity with any solution involving this design vibe.

Key entrances -- poor design trying to hide behind techno-babble.

Square -- joke / place to put Wetherspoons quality outside tables. Failing that it will provide the Nats a place to gather as they chant "we will be free in forty three".

Overall -- filler / much needed filler which will fit in with the other two fairly lacklustre developments adjacent to the site.

Ideal world -- they would be sent back to revisit their efforts with a few tips and hints to help them make the jump from just about passable to good

Whatever evil genius decided to intermingle Fantasy and Reality wording to the public realm areas, has my greatest respect.
Fantasy; Cycle, Relax, Wildlife, Fitness and Scoot.
Reality; Run, Graffiti… I mean Artwall, Skate, Gather, Perform…, and Do-in line.

Many congratulations, you have really cheered me up!

@6 100% hear it

Beautiful, lovable
Yes you, hey, yes you, hey
Beautiful, lovable
Yes you, hey, yes you, hey
Now let’s go until the end

Oppa is Dandaram style, Dandaram style
Oppa is Dandaram style, Dandaram style
Oppa is Dandaram style...

I am just wondering what is going to happen when the money for maintenance and general up keep runs out or some of or all of the tenants cannot afford the incremental service agreement updates. Let us not forget how often tenants would complain about Glasgow Factors carrying out unsatisfactory repairs. Also, look at what is happening with the continuing legal dispute over GrenFell (I know that it comes under a different jurisdiction) but if something like that were to happen here how long would it take to resolve?

#8 - it's a build-to-rent scheme, the site owner would be responsible for maintenance and upkeep.

#9...indeed and when the buildings cross from profit to loss because they need too much work to be done to keep them in a fit state what happens to the tenants who have no savings or equity...all now in the pockets of the fat cats.

@#10 - in that situation the tenants move out to somewhere that is better maintained. Renting, whilst not everyone's cup of tea, does provide far flexibility and mobility for the tenant.

#10 - indeed - and at what point in the last two decades has the PRS _not_ been profitable?

They're a professional operator with multiple sites and deep pockets. I think its fair to raise maintenance liabilities around large buildings with a complex mixture of individual ownerships and a mix of owner-occupation and BTL, but this really isn't that case.

(Plus, I'm sure they'd have no trouble selling the units off and converting the building to individual owners. This has happened in the deep past when the PRS stopped being a cash cow post-war.)