This is a welcome further development in a quarter of Glasgow that already has some stunning regeneration successes. Much of that success is down to the input of Scottish Canals and Gary Watt and the rest of the ISIS team.

Easy seen it's social rented - stands out a mile!

What's the policy of letting out social housing? Is it 'housing for all' or just the needy? Recently, housing association projects have been of much higher quality thatn private developments, so who is getting what?

And who gets the 300zx?

Very very shiny cars. Otherwise looks good.

Social housing is means tested - combined income of £24,000 or below is required to qualify. In the old days it was pot luck whether you got into a high quality development or 'sink' housing. Thanks to the outstanding efforts though of my fellow architects, & the level of spending Glasgow City council has invested, the standard of social housing across the board now far, far exceeds that of the private sector. While the downturn has sadly impacted on the material choices (buff brick), repetition of house types & rear elevation treatment on this particular development - the finished article will still be highly commendable & will have outstanding waterside amenity, aspect & room sizes. I personally could only dream of affording such a property in the private sector.

Snooch, my affordability is similar. If I earn less I can get a brilliant housing association home designed by talented architects, or if I earn a average wage, I can only buy a miserable 'lifestyle' flat from Westpoint Homes designed by the developer's dog. I don't want to reference dodgy old Ayn Rand, but there is some kind of truth in there.

Dirge, from a society standpoint I couldnt agree more with you. If we disillusion the 'squeezed middle' of this country & remove the possibilty for an individual to create a better life for themself through hard work, the country is in serious trouble. On a personal level though, I am enormously grateful for the design freedom & level of specification that social housing schemes have afforded me. I appreciate the hypocrysy - I hope to soon have my own boutique development company, with the sole aim of resolving the confliction, by creating amazing homes people such as ourselves could afford. My great hope though, is that through websites such as this - enough of he general public will come to share your view & use their buying power to demand 'more for their buck' from the Taylor Wimpeys of this world.

Maybe I'm just terminally underdeveloped but why do people need puerile 'incentives' & a reward based schema to motivate themselves to do something useful with their life? Is it just me or is this the sort of thinking you would expect from a 14 year old- extraneous remuneration ought to be a possible consequence of leading a purposeful existence- not an end in itself.
Ayn Rand was the craziest old bat in the cave-excitable as bald man in a wig factory: its always the same with these Super-cretins with delusions of Masterful status who in reality couldn't even do up their own zippers or boil an egg.

PS

As for the fantastic project- this part of the city has so much potential and the above development should be a catalyst for its continued regeneration.

Wonky, relax, have some tea.

Look, nobody sighed in despair louder than I did when finishing that barmy novel about Roark's pre-t party crusade. And it's not about aspirations that some feel they deserve better than others, but it's more about why are there very few developments of this scheme available on the open market at a reasonable price? The middle-market (well what I consider middle market is probably bottom market) doesn't deliver anything like what is being offered here. You talk of an interesting utopia, perhaps my utopia would be one where the design literacy of developers and buyers was higher so that they 'cared' more about what they were building/buying and if this would need state funding to make it feasible, as is the case here, then it would be applied to a wider scope of the population. Good Housing For All, no?

Having been privileged to design a number of social housing developments, the success is due to 1. decent space standards; 2. decent levels of funding; 3. no developer looking to make a ridiculous profit off the top line; 4. RSL's willing to trust a design team to deliver quality.
Good housing for All? No, not until the private sector is taken to task over quality and value for money

By the way.. where can I get one of these houses designed by the developer's dog? They sound great!!

You don't want one, they are really ruff and the woofing leaks like mad.

You would be barking mad to try for one of those Auntie

Agree with Edward Harkins, Gary and John at ISIS are trying to do great things in difficult circumstances. Maybe UR should initiate a search for client of the year?

Client of the Year?
When then did they put out a a PPQ request which forced architects to do a mountain of work, submit detailed design, and planning costs on the camping pods. It was a rip off, in my view

I think you mean Scottish Canals and PQQ but I agree it was outragous.

The canal side terrace is a little bit long, isn't it? Not enough variation. They would have been as well to just copy the block to infinity and complete the look.