Not sure what is meant by "low utility" but its about the only public car park in entire west end. Its loss would be big problem.

Love the idea and restoring a lane that is nothing now, especially if we can have shops and restaurants along the ground floor, extending Ashton Lane. The loss of parking is an issue as is the poor design. Can’t do much about parking but the design should echo the Bay windows of all surrounding houses, use stone and not brick.

#1 although it is almost prohibitively expensive as it is, so perhaps not such a massive loss

Quite a bit of hyperbolic spin going on here:

''The current design principles aim to pay homage to the historic homes that once stood on the site'' Really? Because the above sketch looks like a monstrous modern 6 level building, totally at odds with the historic terraced housing on the other side of Lilybank and nothing like past buildings would have looked in design or scale.

''replace low-utility surface parking'' which is also obliterating one of the very few public car parks left in the West End!

''transforming the car park into a lively and integrated space for the University and wider community'' It is not going to be of benefit for the wider community, who really don't need any more shops and restaurants in the vicinity.

''boost the vitality of the university core'' This really doesnt need boosting! Pretty vibrant as it is.

I think retaining a bit of open space and having the convenience of actually finding a parking space for those who might need one is of greater value to the wider community.

An alumni of Glasgow University, I am really pleased to see it flourish and grow. However I think things are getting out of control. The rate of construction of massive oversized buildings is slowly destroying the character which makes the West End so special.

The fact that the parking is cripplingly expensive and is very full speaks volumes about the real situation on the ground until the real alternatives are in place.

Meantime the design image looks like it came from a different continent let alone suitable to fit in with the vibrantly mixed style and small scale of Ashton lane. Which, by the way, was earmarked for demolition back in the day by the same sort of people who support unthought through bad ideas like this.

People can (and i am absolutely sure, will) bleat about it all they want, but at the end of the day the university owns that land and they can't be forced to rent it out to GCC to use as a car park if they don't want to

Yeah we should all just suck up these bad decisions and keep quiet.

You’re wrong anyway as it could and should get refused planning if it looks anything like this.

And if you want be really pedantic about it (and it seems you do) compulsory purchase is always an option for a city council.

Rarely used though as they prefer to just let things run down into a dystopian mess rather than actually help with the lives their own ordinary citizens as per their given reason to exist.

I never said anything about whether the application should be approved. I was just pointing out that the loss of the car park shouldn't really be a consideration in the decision. GU own the land and they could simply stop leasing it to the council if they wanted to.

The law defines a very narrow range of situations that CPOs can be used and, while i don't claim to be a lawyer, I'm pretty sure "we want your land for a council car park" isn't one of them

He said she said….

The loss of the previous parking amenity would be a consideration on a new planning application.

Compulsory purchase can be used for a surprisingly wide range of uses.

People used to live on Lilybank Gardens until the university ate it up and defecated a car park onto half of it. The proposal doesn't look radically bigger in scale than the tenements surrounding it. The principles at play here tick every box anyone who has a serious interest in the planning and development of their neighbourhood and city might wish for. If your argument is of style and taste then carping about car parks isn't going to win it for you.

Streetview context
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1R6pChHw4VviqPpz6?g_st=ac

'Car'ping on about car parks...

I like it.


Totally agree with you in that poor aesthetics and urban design also an issue. The 'destroy all parking' (and small business) brigade will just keep 'carping' on or 'bleating' furiously and twisting their arguments or outright lying until they get their wicked way.

For the record, personally, I am okay for all parking and car use in Glasgow to be destroyed as a policy but only once proper alternatives are fully in place.

Please bear in mind we are in a worse position now than were 40 years ago in that regard.

Car park was empty last time I passed it

Stodge but much needed filler.
Big issue -- will it expand Ashton Lane?
Car park -- very expensive as is most parking in the city.
And yet we wonder why the city centre is quiet.
Turning the city centre into a town of 20K even 40K -- not a great idea as the shopping volume moves to out of town.
Golden Goose is being starved / plucked / tortured all at the same time.
Yet nobody complains.

A two minute look on Google street view will give you a huge body of evidence that this car park is almost always close to full these last 17 years.

Maybe it just happened to be quiet when the out of town car bound commuters have driven past it and glanced in. See comment 11 perhaps coming true in comment 12 above.

Or maybe it really did just get super quiet the last few months when the pricing moved from the 'stratospheric' category in to the 'intergalactic' category.

Do your own research and form your own opinions and keep carping and bleating until you get something that actually works for a liveable life with cars or without cars but it need to actually work!

Turning our city into a north American car bound donut city with no centre is not a good idea at all.

Double perverse that it is the very policies against cars that are doing it too, full Hegelian Dialectic and Stockholm Syndrome at play here.

A quick look on Google Streetview gives a maximum 13 single data points spread over 13 years up to 2021. A close look reveals the same cars parked in the same spots. The city doesn't owe you a piece of land to park your engine box on, that's your financial responsibility and yours alone. You want a car? Buy a car park.

Residents get permits so they don’t need to ‘buy a car park’.

There may well be a strong relationship between local sustainable small businesses and this car park while we wait for the proper alternatives to come to fruition (never at this rate) and the out of town development to stop (currently encouraged by the madness going on in the inner city to make it unlivable).

Sounds like your research went a bit too deep and you fell down the usual rabbit hole of thinking if you destroy all parking you’ll somehow magically fix all our transit problems.

#16 seems like you went too deep. My "research" was a direct response to #14's "two minute look". Not sure how long you think it takes to click through and count the number of Streetview instances. I couldn't care less about people's petty parking squabbles, which if you weren't quite so "ossified" you might have garnered.

Attitudes like yours and others displayed here is why you get no sympathy for your parking quibbles.

Geet ohn the busssss...

Have you been on a bus recently in Glasgow?

Worse than the 80s but no, maybe it will somehow suddenly magically improve if you just needlessly wreck all other transit options..

Am not concerned about parking itself per se (same as you) but rather am worried about consequent destruction of small business and community while we wait for proper alternatives to be put in place although Byres Road is a strong area it has to be admitted.

Look what you and your wee well intentioned virtue signally pals have done to the city centre.

Shameful.