The new facility will be clad in brick ..... and Kingspan .... With a Nord-esque open brick bit to make it look pure contemporary (man!)

… but at least the birds have made it into the 3d renders

Aye but thave aww got their backs to you so you canny tell if their pure belters or no

I'm more worried about the giant hogweed that has become established in the glazed courtyard in picture 2. Is this a bit of contaminated topsoil imported from Coatbrig'?

What happened to the design quality aiding the healing and recovery process? From the images it seems to have been forgotten here.

More mind numbingly immature comments to greet what appears to be a pretty reasonable design.

Could do with possibly being a bit squatter in proportion though. The use of brick should always be seen as a positive thing.

No wonder people criticise this website when people have nothing better to do than be stupid.

Having recently undergone 6 weeks of radiotherapy at the current Beatson facility I'd say this design is 'drab'. The 'black cladding' is not reassuringly 'bright' (the expected patient outcome) and portrays potentially a 'dark and drastic' facility which it is not the concept for those human beings undergoing the treatment. The hope is 'hope' for success of treatment. A more colourful exterior and interior would have maybe been appropriate. The visiion offered (including old people hunched over with walking sticks) is not the real experience of patients nor attendees for treatment. The 'welcoming facade' is remnant of a 'funeral facility' - faceless and windowless. My experience of the Beatson is that there are NEVER sufficient parking spaces for the patients - staff occupy parking. Experience of Monklands currently is identical .. undoubtedly the process and experience of the patient may be frustrating and substandard if there is insufficient planning of the actual arrival at the facility to accommodate the people who might be actually there to receive the treatment. Management of the site post construction is critical to any 'customer experience' .. as such I doubt that this is a consideration of the 'Peofessional Architect'. A building should be 'fit for purpose' .. and so should the experience of 'users' of the facility in terms of individual experience from 'arrival to departure'. As an example - the SOCCA fscility in Gartcosh - currently 200 cars park on the access road in the Gartcosh site. Architects did not allow sufficient parking in the SOCCA facility and lack of funding has failed to allow the creation of additional REQUIRED parking for the staff. The result is horrendous for all other (future) users of the GBI and users of the Gartcosh train station, notwithstaning destruction of the 'green' drainage system and generally the 'park' environment of this modern industrial site. Go have a look ! Apalling in my mind - the Lanarkshire Beatson (and neighbours therto) heading for a similar 'fate'.

Sorry but I don't mind this. it seems to draw on Nordic modernism, e.g. Arne Jacobsen, with a civic and understated look. Hard to tell how it relates to the rest of the site - I can't work out it's location - but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt... It does seem to recall in a way the MHU on the site - no architectural masterpiece itself for sure but it's context. Car parking is a huge problem at ML but it was built in 1979 under crown immunity and the masterplanning problems all stem from that IMO. This is often the challenge that architects have when considering further developments on already over-crowded hospital sites and I don't think there is one simple answer

@ David - very sorry, I must remember that pointing out ridiculous things on 3 renders is not appropriate on here, when they are the only thing presented for comment.
Instead we should make "mature" comments such as the design (where no information on context or plan/sections etc have been presented) is reasonable!!
Great debate, I'm off for some fine wine, olives and gentlemen's relish...

thanks Steve thats the best post i've seen in a while.

david, why is the use of brick a postive thing??

Steve, as with many on the comments of this website, you seem to have a problem with 'architect' and hold them in contempt for not providing sufficient car parking.

Client brief, planning allowances, and general size of site will all have been influential in determining car park space numbers. Architects very rarely have the freedom, if that is the correct term, to specify numbers of spaces.

Many planning conditions actively attempt to minimise parking spaces to supposedly encourage mass transit options.

Not withstanding the 'appalling' lack of car park spaces, generally the Beatson and institutes like it and Monklands should be applauded.

Stan,

The use of brick is an (not the only) appropriate choice of material in wet west/central scotland, and will weather well compared to some other materials we see on construction sites. It's no surprise that after the careless use of render (and even timber) and budget driven use of certain cladding panels that brick is back in a big way. You only have to look around to see how often and well it is being used these days. So, the fact that we are seeing more of it is a positive thing.

I'm all for a nice bit of precast too, Stan Concrete

I would say brickwork is NOT an appropriate cladding material in the West of Scotland. It is more prone to leaks than rendered masonry, and will often suffer from efflorescence in exposed areas. This is one reason why brickwork was not used historically in the West, meaning it is often inappropriate aesthetically.

Ian, show me one good rendered building, and I'll show you 20 good brick ones.

Some of the quality of rendered elevations in Glasgow is deplorable. Even as little as 5 years after completion several are in dire need of repair, and staining generally is seriously terrible.

I don't see brick weathering so poorly in short spaces of time, do you?