Kelvinside gap site plans revived
December 11 2012
The plot will be developed in line with the surrounding context of neighbouring flatted properties to deliver build 18 townhouses, 46 apartments and 26 mews houses, a reduction in density from initial design proposals drawn up in 2008.
These attribute a greater proportion of land to landscaping and car parking whilst retaining the design language of the original and a row of protected lime trees.
Clad in natural stone, reconstituted stone and render the £26m development will sport natural slate roofs in areas visible from the street – with concrete tiling used elsewhere in addition to a copper feature turret.
In their design statement New City Vision state: “The fine architectural detail of the development has been designed and executed with the same level of literacy in classical and traditional architecture as the original. This does not mean the result is a direct copy but rather that the design has a harmonious continuity with the original.”
A North Kelvin Meadow campaign has been launched to preserve the area as open greenspace.
A row of protected lime trees will be retained
The volume of housing has been reduced for the latest plans
|
10 Comments
#2 Posted by Due Dilligence on 11 Dec 2012 at 14:16 PM
Looks a decent plan to me. Bit of an eyesore that site, and in a good area. Plus would increase urban density nicely. The area stretching out towards Maryhill appears to be improving with new flat developments.
#3 Posted by Partick Bateman on 11 Dec 2012 at 16:01 PM
Looking forward to the reaction to this from the NIMBYS who've started using this patch of waste ground since they heard it might be developed. God forbid they might have to move their wee vegetable planters.
#4 Posted by wonky on 11 Dec 2012 at 17:17 PM
I can't see what's "horrific" about this design at all. All the modernist fundamentalists will say no to anything that reflects the past ( even where its appropriate)- and the heritage fundamentalists will say yes to anything that looks old. They're just as bad as each other. This design is decent- it can only be judged on the materials used in the finish- but it does look as though it may have promise.
But that won't stop the nimby's and bourgeois tree huggers from claiming primacy for their urban wasteland...I mean the urban "meadow"...silly me.
If this project delivers a first class finish and avoids pastiche then it begs the question: why can't we reinstate or resurrect lost or unbuilt Mackintosh, Thomson ( Caledonia Rd Terrace or the Eglinton Street tenements) or other great Glasgow architects such as Honeyman, Scott, Burnet and Salmon?
Sometimes you need to go back to go forward- architectural tourism anyone?
But that won't stop the nimby's and bourgeois tree huggers from claiming primacy for their urban wasteland...I mean the urban "meadow"...silly me.
If this project delivers a first class finish and avoids pastiche then it begs the question: why can't we reinstate or resurrect lost or unbuilt Mackintosh, Thomson ( Caledonia Rd Terrace or the Eglinton Street tenements) or other great Glasgow architects such as Honeyman, Scott, Burnet and Salmon?
Sometimes you need to go back to go forward- architectural tourism anyone?
#5 Posted by Due Dilligence on 11 Dec 2012 at 19:27 PM
Spot on Wonky.
#6 Posted by James Tallent on 11 Dec 2012 at 22:23 PM
I can't see what is wrong with it either. Not being to everyone's taste doesn't mean it is awful. Glasgow has empty plots all over the city...mainly unsightly, and always a reminder of the city's decline. One less is a good thing.
#7 Posted by Kelvin Meadow on 17 Dec 2012 at 14:15 PM
The images shown here do not fully reflect the most recent version of the plans. More here: http://northkelvinmeadow.com/planning-application-how-to-oppose/#images
#8 Posted by Barago on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:12 AM
Have to say that, having looked at these designs, it looks a decent project to me. Far better to develop inner city sites then expand on the fringes. Also it only appears to have been a 'meadow' for a couple of years.
#9 Posted by Partick Bateman on 18 Dec 2012 at 11:20 AM
They really shouldnt develop this site, the locals will have to face the arduous trek to The Botanic Gardens if they want to use a green space. Shocking.
#10 Posted by wonky on 19 Dec 2012 at 16:24 PM
The Kelvin WalkWay is even closer than the Botanic. It's about a minute from this site...some folk are just spoiled for choice!
Post your comments
Back to December 2012
Like us on Facebook
Become a fan and share
News Archive
Search News
Features & Reports
For more information from the industry visit our Features & Reports section.
And as for that quote from the design statement...a high ten on the BS-ometer.