A deeply depressing array of shoe-boxes-on-end in a similar vein to their designs at Blackfriars. I can sort of see where they're headed with this one - a kind of blend of the Solasta Riverside and Candleriggs Appartments. I'm betting that glazed terracotta will be the order of the day too. Hopefully we avoid the blank frontage foisted on Kingston Street.
I think the designers need to re-establish the joy of creating roof elements rather than seeing them as lids on their shoe-boxes, destined only as space for roof-mounted plant. Note how some are kind of articulated and other not.
Like the E&C masterplan at Sighthill, this is another one of those moments where architects are are better at architecture than urban design. We either have blocks (which are really island plots) or we have blocks that are sieve-lilke and permeable. The plot footprints look very deep - a classic sign that theres going to be a lot of single aspect accommodation served by long corridors and one wonders what is driving the seemingly random tower heights.
If it's publicly accessible , it will be a POPs and the same will be true of the connecting lane and interstitial spaces.
Just a starter for 10 of q's for the consultation.

#1 Yawn

#1 oh ffs bring back Fbot....

#2 Outstanding piece of critical thinking. Well done you. ????

@#3
Why not attempt to rebut the criticism? Are you unwilling - or perhaps- as I suspect unable to do so. Maybe you think this is great design. Please tell us why.

#2 is right though! Another missed opportunity. Safe, dull, uninspired dross....

Hopefully things improve during the detail design phase -- otherwise we are going to be stuck with a developer special that will not stand the test of time.

Big / bulky / banal -- those are its good traits.
Everything else is honking -- filler is needed but this middle class stack-a-pleb nonsense by a quick bodge it and scarper developer vibe that has let us down before.

Finally Transport 1400 / peasant spec car provision means there will be no children -- Pied Piper not required.

Great for any car park owners in the near vicinity but not for balanced neighbourhoods. E/house is a gem compared to this.

This is a masterplan?

STACK 'EM HIGH SB

That Roddy_
Where does he find the time
"... rebut the criticism? Are you unwilling - or perhaps - as I suspect unable to do so" - LOL

Yet more vulture capitalist matrix pods?

Forget about single aspect flats and long corridors, how on earth do they manage to fill the whole block and have no amenity space whatsoever?

Hint- you won't need amenity space if you're inside the matrix.

In short we need to stop doing this kind of stuff very soon otherwise we deserve our own fate.

@11 - You have a green space (with kids playgrounds) the size a of small town at your doorstep. Also riverfront. Two other mini parks 5 minutes walk. What kind of amenities do you expect in direct heart of the large city? Spare trampolines for Nitshills and Easterhouses...

One of the entire blocks is built on, every inch of it by the looks of things.

If you think that's okay then you are entitled to your opinion of course.

@Lovely do you see amenity space / gardens on other city centre residential developments?

Agree that communal block gardens are perhaps too ambitious for Glasgow although still a good aspiration.

Perhaps a balcony or two, a yard, a roof garden, a lightwell, anything other than filling the whole block like that, not just a question of outdoor usable space but also of daylight, view, natural ventilation, space planning and liveability.

If you want to set your aspiration ultra low that's up to you of course

@15 You're right, it's too ambitious. Same as 3-level underground parking for residents and visitors of city centre easily accommodable if pressed by planners. Same for balconies and roof gardens/communal spaces. Truth is, we'll get another Solasta/Candleriggs style towers with zero passive surveilance of ground level shops/pubs/cafes. Glasgow style.