... There still appears to be much confusion in the world as to what redevelopment actually means.

It basically means ‘to build or to prepare land for building on’, i.e. when we are talking buildings not as the overarching term for the likes of negatives, thoughts, strategies etc.

The article is therefore right to call the proposal a redevelopment as it satisfies the former meaning, but readers will do well to bear in mind that it is a ‘site redevelopment’ in particular rather than a redevelopment of a listed building.

Ambiguity or wordplay is often not an issue in architectural journalism given an expectation of regular wit. It is rather the “redevelopments” of the Kelvin Hall or the National Museum of Scotland etc. that I’ve heard of recently - emanating undoubtedly from vote hungry clients - that are of greater concern.

These notable exemplars of conservation are being erringly tagged in a wordplay that refuses to use such true terms as alteration, repair, maintenance, refurbishment, adaptations, etc. Such articles usually go on to elaborate on the truer terms and allow us to forgive the wordplay or misuse.

[Should the big wide world however succeed in this particular retagging of language, i.e. when the “build” significance of the word is finally quelled with the overarched meaning of the word, and I think it’ll be giving it its best shot, then A) will we be able to go back in the history books and append the ps “not conservation related” to all 1960s CDA redevelopment citations, that’s a good few million book corrections at least?; and B) a diploma in Architectural Conservation would be better to be abbreviated as a ‘DipReDev’ rather than as a ‘DipAC’; and so on...!]

“Development” (i.e. pertaining to its ‘build’ meaning) is generally the opposite of conservation, i.e. we develop or we conserve; and of course we intermingle each, e.g. as shown in the above reported site redevelopment.

Good luck to all Architects vis-a-vis their [“be honest...”] code of conduct clause when asked to submit for the forthcoming proliferation of “redevelopments”, i.e. alterations, in the pipeline!

Thanks Kev' for the euthanasia-inspiring essay

I'm more worried about those poor people wandering accross the Barnton junction, than semantics. Bit optomistic in the rendering there I think guys....

#3 - you're right. Am all about pedestrians over vehicles but this is either massive naivety on the architects part or total lack of contextual understanding. word.

I think this is marvellous - hurra !

They need to just get on with it. Am surprised that the old stone building has not burned down yet, as Scotland has very combustible stone buildings, especially when developments stall and during token development with no security. Still the burning may happen when the scaffolding is up to make it look less suspicious but you never know, they may redevelop the old building without issue.