Clad it in Grey! Grey Cladding! Grey! Grey! Grey! Clad it Grey! I demand to know if they plan to clad this new hotel Grey! This image does not instill me with a lot of confidence- why is it so far away? Is someone embarrassed about something? It isn't even born yet and already its an architectural orphan...ah well...clad it in grey and no one will notice.

We Want Architecture Not Boxes!

I quite like
I think it fits in quite well with chipperfiels bbc building

the building on the left bred with the building on the right and got the building in the middle

Awful waste of an opportunity. Hey- there's already two boxes- a nice one and one not so nice- let's go for an even worse one, with staggered mullions and a cafe that's inaccessible from the walkway, and grey to match the skies. Bah!

While I'm at it, can we have someone proof-reading this stuff? Premier Inn's?

In a city which predominantly has grey skies-don't clad it in grey! In fact just don't clad it! Surely a budget must allow some use of stone?

And do what with the stone Ross?

I suspect he means clad it in stone, which I suspect is well beyond the budget.

However I totally agree with the criticisms. The facades are very dull, and lack any character or excitement especially given their location, and visibility. What is especially concerning me is the lack of any interaction with context at ground floor (mainly blank grey panels). 'A glazed extension protruding along the river front' is clearly an innacurate description of what the 3D image actually shows. Too many architects seem to write descriptions of their proposals which flatter to deceive.

Yes, I figured that too, however he says 'Don't clad it' which is a bit odd if he then wants it clad in stone. My other thought was he expects full masonry construction here, solid blocks of stone etc.

Which would then be a whole different argument and beyond even the wildest budget/sense of reality....

Kind of like most of the comments on here.

Oh, and for the record, I agree that its pretty poor. In fact very poor.

I am sure the use of stone could be incorporated imaginatively into the building to reflect the use of stone tradititionally used in Glasgow.

Those are just my lay mans comments.

Is this not on an old industrial site in glasgow? How exactly is stone appropriate in this context?
I agree that the building doesn't look good, but cladding it in stone would add nothing but expense to an already poor scheme

Layman's comments - make it out of stone.

We hear this sort of basic drivel all the time when something new is proposed in Glasgow. Put up any old crap as long as some rubbish flat stone cladding is farted up in to place to make it look like an oldie-times building.

I have even heard comments that the transport museum should have been a stone clad shed. Now, think what you will of the Riverside Museum, but really, is this the level of debate and sophistication in this country?

The scheme on show here is poor. There is no doubt about that, however this would not be rectified by cladding it in stone, and the sooner lay people and those who procure buildings in this country evolve beyond these simple good/bad switches the better the built envirnonment will be.

Rant over.

and what a rant it was.

I second your rant Rem Koolbag. No matter what material this scheme is finished in it will still fail as a quality piece of architecture.

A total wasted opportunity on a fantastic site, with a fantastic neighbouring building in the BBC.

Well, it was certainly better than just trotting out the old line that stone will make everything better.

Shit buildings get clad in stone too.

Examples of ugly stone clad buildings ?

I still believe that stone buildings offer a substantial appearance, and hopefully Glasgow will continue to leave an architectural heritage to future generations. Sheet metal cladding is fine- in an old industrial park in suburbs, not a feature on the River Clyde.

Examples of ugly stone clad buildings ?

I still believe that stone buildings offer a substantial appearance, and hopefully Glasgow will continue to leave an architectural heritage to future generations. Sheet metal cladding is fine- in an old industrial park in suburbs, not a feature on the River Clyde.

haha, this is one of the most famous industrial areas in the uk, but apparently that doesn't matter because it's in glasgow and the only successful buildings in glasgow are stone?!

Have you ever been to glasgow before ross?

Restaurant/residential corner of Ingram St/Glassford St

Residential/empty commercial Glassford Street

Commercial/residential Waterloo st/Wellington St

Clydesdale Bank same junction

SSE headquarters Hope St/Waterloo Street

Entire swathes of Kilmarnock Road on South Side

These are examples purely on aesthetics and as such are subjective. They are also mostly new buildings. Again, subjectively you could choose many victorian buildings purely on aesthitics.

Ross, you mention ugly buildings, where I said 'shit' buildings. Different things. Visually ugly buildings can still engage with context and create interesting public spaces for examples. Shit buildings dont, and no amount of stone cladding will fix that.

Ross raises a fair point - Glasgow as a city with such strong Victorian heritage - mainly built of stone (and brick to that matter)... deserves more stone as testament to its past and as a material that sparkles and works with the local lighting and climate. Obviously crap buildings can me made of stone too - but as a quality, contextual and durable material it is made to last... The majority of buildings which are built these days are made of materials and systems that have a limited life span, which does not help foster a good built environment.

Do you even know where this site is? You would have to walk for a fair few yonks before you find another building made in this stone 'context' you speak of.

.....er.....With the exception of Govan Town Hall which is an interesting Historic Listed Build and just up the road.

I dont know why were even discussing this. The Client has a budget and he sure aint going to make any more funds available to clad it in “Fake” stone just for fun

oh.... and Buro Happolds Offices and the Rotunda which i think are both historic listed buildings on the site

while we're at it, let's get the finnieston crane clad in stone, I mean, it just looks so out of place in that area of glasgow!

Boab, Burro Happold offices and the Rotunda are made in 'brick'. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

I think the point here, as I have stated before, is that it is far too simple a solution to say 'lets clad the building in stone' and forget that it's massing, orientation, position on site, landscaping, accessibility etc all have an impact far greater (and negative) on 'context'

It is too simplistic to think that material alone make a good building. When I say good I am not meaning aesthetically good either. Before material is even considered, the points mentioned above, along with many more, need to be addressed and resolved well.

The examples of stone buildings given by Boab are good buildings not only because they are built of stone but because they perform(ed) their function in a manner fitting with the wider context. The historical grain of the area, the streetscape, the social aspirations of the time etc.

Context's point about cladding the crane in stone is a good one - it's material and its form match perfectly it's function. To alter this is to deny the true nature of the thing. To lie for aesthetic reasons only.

Why do so many aspire to live in a mock tudor cottage, built in 2012 of modern materials procured in an environmentally responsible, supply-chain-managed way, drawn to the mm on a computer drafting system etc, at the same time parking their technologically advanced car made of aluminium and carbon fibre, running energy efficient fuels in the (cobbled) drive. These are the same people who often accuse (!) architects of only being concerned with aesthetics!

== This comment has been removed for contravening UR's t&c's of comment ==

Architectural cliché’s that im fed up of hearing from the public:

“its out of scale”

“a flat roof? In Scotland? That’ll never work...”

“theres no sense of history to it”

“humans just aren’t meant to live in tall buildings”

“that could be anywhere in the world”

and yes, "why don't you build a nice traditional stone building?"

BOOOOOOOOORING!! I bet they put a car park behind it as well
o( o . . O )o
^

Have you seen the new St. Andrews House Deep Purple Hotel? Glasgow is filling up with these awful new hotel buildings. What is going on?