June 19 2024

lasgow's inner city Anderston district is poised for transformative change after city planners granted the all-clear to a major urban renewal project.

Central Quay by Summix Capital will deliver a mixed-use district on brownfield land north of the River Clyde, around an existing office building. Incorporating 409 apartments and 934 student beds the project seeks to emulate the regeneration success of nearby Finnieston by shifting perceptions of the area from desolation to a des-res.

Spread across four 'building blocks' split between 3DReid and Graeme Nicholls Architects the island city will incorporate retail and commercial space with the ambition to meet net zero carbon standards in operation.

Steps will be taken to reduce embodied carbon in materials and technologies such as air source heat pumps and solar panels. A sustainable urban drainage system will also be introduced within the landscaped grounds, designed separately by Re-form.

Stuart Black, development director for Summix Capital, commented: “This truly mixed-use scheme represents a significant investment in Glasgow, assisting in tackling the housing emergency through providing much-needed housing and best-in-class student accommodation, as well as commercial space.  

“The development of the brownfield site will continue the significant transformation of this location from vacant, derelict former industrial land, to one which will create a new residential neighbourhood."

Wider benefits of the new neighbourhood include roof gardens, children's play areas and a public square.

20 Comments

#1 Posted by Roddy_ on 19 Jun 2024 at 12:06 PM

Unremarkable shoe-box-on-end architecture. Soulless, artless and could be anywhere. Dumpy and squat. Is it Croyden or Sheffield or Salford?

The key the city's new tall buildings policy will be how to incorporate local distinctiveness, how talls should be proportioned, how they should terminate and how plinths should operate properly.

All too late for this alas.

#2 Posted by monkey9000 on 19 Jun 2024 at 12:33 PM

Roddy_ Curious to know if you have any current working examples of tall buildings policies that set out these criteria?

#3 Posted by Ben on 19 Jun 2024 at 12:38 PM

Looks great.....get it built! The corridor around the Kingston Bridge/M8 will end up being by far the densest urban area in Glasgow and Scotland.

#4 Posted by Spike on 19 Jun 2024 at 12:54 PM

Good to see this investment if it does finally arrive in Glasgow

#5 Posted by Roddy_ on 19 Jun 2024 at 13:01 PM

Also no discussion at the PAC on the nature of the 'public' realm. Same paradigm as before?
More publicly accessible private spaces per Buchanan Wharf, Candleriggs, JP Morgan ?

#6 Posted by Roddy_ on 19 Jun 2024 at 15:30 PM

@ #2
Manchester, Birmingham, London , even Leeds has had one for nearly a decade. Plenty others.
And while the policy or framework is no guarantee of quality (a discretionary planning system does not embed quality unfortunately) it means that the worst excesses of poor quality might be avoided.

Over and above a tall building policy - possibly more important- is a proper masterplan for the neighbourhood and wider district. Where will the services for this new, dense neighbourhood go. Where will the new schools,nurseries, health centres, parks and shops go? Or will it end up the same as the suburban experiments in Dalmarnock or Sighthill where a 20 minute neighbourhood seems like a pipe dream rather than a principle that needs to be embeded and delivered?

This is classic laissez faire stuff from the City Council. We need the applications commitee to step up to the plate also. Below is a question to the developers from a member at this particular committee. I think it speaks for itself.

'So I am also concerned about the balconies . I noticed in drawings there are balconies but I am corncerned about the tiling effect of the exterior that you are proposing being a.. it was a strong feature... and how the balconies connect to ensure it's a quality development in the long run. Is there a standard balcony design for it or.. you. It'd be useful to understand the design principles for balconies. Thanks'

https://glasgow.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/820573

#7 Posted by Roddy_ on 19 Jun 2024 at 20:15 PM

@#6
Not sure whatpoint you're trying to counter in the 1st paragraph of your post. 'This leaned constable is too cunning to be understood' is what comes to mind.
To be clear, the reference to those areas has nothing to do with riverside contexts and everything to do with local distinctiveness or a lack thereof. Clearer?
'Drink some wine ere you go'

#8 Posted by Mark on 20 Jun 2024 at 09:51 AM

No architectural imagination or flair. I understand need to keep costs down but c'mon just give us something. Even if just one building wasn't box shaped.
What a shame.

#9 Posted by Donald on 20 Jun 2024 at 12:26 PM

The development is good. It adds more residents to an area and the commercial portion is much needed as not much has been put in place to support the Lancefield Quay flats since they were built. Issue I have with building talls as they need a proper focal building of quality - what we seem to be constantly building is filler and never the focal building to bring it together.

#10 Posted by Pants on 20 Jun 2024 at 12:32 PM

It is a shame that for developments to stack up in Glasgow is just to go upwards. The planners in Glasgow are not learning from the past and just making the same mistakes again. We are not building sustainable communities with these types of buildings / developments. It does not matter how you dress it up or sugar coat it, it is just pants!

#11 Posted by GMan on 20 Jun 2024 at 13:51 PM

#10 Council needs money to pay legacy bills like equal pay plus do up the place and maintain what they can within their power, money ain't coming from anywhere else. Re-populating the place after 60 years of making it a dive, this means more Council tax receipts and not going bankrupt like some councils elsewhere that are in a dire state financially.

#12 Posted by Chris on 20 Jun 2024 at 14:19 PM

#10 What would you prefer, terraced housing with front and back gardens?

This is an inner city site - urban, high density developments are exactly what we need to be sustainable.

#13 Posted by Lovely on 21 Jun 2024 at 13:27 PM

Why build such high dystopian blocks when you still have loads of inner city gap sites?

#14 Posted by town planner on 21 Jun 2024 at 22:48 PM

#13 Don't look dystopian to me. As for height, the vast majority of housing stock across Scotland is low rise, this is a central Glasgow site close to the M8 and Clyde, and I think higher density is the way to go here.

#15 Posted by Roddy_ on 23 Jun 2024 at 00:23 AM

Create Streets hs picked up on this. Not sure about the 'wide road' thing as the roads are probably as wide as they would be with mid-rise or tenement perimeter blocks. In fact it might be advisable fot this scheme's roads to be a bit wider for sunlight/ daylight penetration. But generally I would tend to agree with their observations.

https://twitter.com/createstreets/status/1804293543499796520

#16 Posted by Pants on 23 Jun 2024 at 13:47 PM

In response to #11 #12, I appreciate that the city is broke and that this may be the only financially viable development, but it will not deliver sustainable communities and no I don't want terraced housing with front and back gardens.
The fault is in the City Plan, it is not fit for purpose to deliver sustainable communities and quality housing. Developers are paying too much for the land because they can speculate on how tall they can go. Berlin has an historic height restriction of 22m and yet there is an abundance of imaginative housing solutions there. Given the choice, I know where I would want to live.
I appreciate that the planners in GCC are trying their best but we need a better City Plan.
It should not be just about the number of units, look at the mistakes of the past - an endless cycle of build - demolish - build - demolish.......etc

#17 Posted by Lovely on 23 Jun 2024 at 15:52 PM

If it doesn’t look dystopian to you that is because dystopia has become so normalised for a lot of people who’ve given up on any kind of decent design, community, sustainability or beauty as they are so badly brow beaten down to the lowest common denominator. AKA the toxic output of vulture capitalism and corrupt corporate globalism.

#18 Posted by Fat Bloke on Tour on 26 Jun 2024 at 14:18 PM

Tenements in all their variety were dystopian to the people moving to the city from a cottage / hovel in the countryside.

You cannot build a community out of a car park / a warehouse / a car rental kiosk.

Seemingly Glesga is in the middle of a housing emergency -- new build units / investment is what will rescue us from this situation.

You can question why the social sector is demolishing 600 small flats with good connections to the university while the private sector is building expensive student accommodation to meet a very public need.

However it is "their" money and if second rate design balances the books and provides much needed accommodation then sniffy / snider pseudo architect / placemaking chat is just so much hot air of no real value.

Long view -- 10/20 year market acceptance -- social housing north of the Expressway vs private sector housing south of the expressway.

To me -- game on.

#19 Posted by Lovely on 26 Jun 2024 at 14:43 PM

I guess progress can still be called progress if you like even though it is progress towards something bad.

#20 Posted by town planner on 3 Jul 2024 at 12:41 PM

#17/19 - "dystopian" is a bit of a stretch for me, but your broader point about design I agree with sadly.

Post your comments