AAAAARH,

Wit is wrang wae you lot? Why no just build the new buildings like the old wans? Why not? It's pastiche is it? Well, if it's so backwards to build in an older style, why the desire tae build in park circus at all? This is an abomination. Ye want the prestige of park circus and its brilliant architecture but ye dinnae want tae actually maintain the precedent standard and style becoz it's easier and cheaper tae build this 'modern' version.

Wit's wae the wonky roofs? Aw, the architect wiz makin a statement about how 'modern' this new bit is coz it doesnae exactly resemble the old bit. Got ye.

I do not approve this.

I think I like this. Do we still have enough gazillionaires to fill 111 flats thought?

Anyway, compare to this ... http://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Residential/Park.jpg

Big C

your non-approval is noted.

Thanks for your input

It's not the worst I've seen for this site. I mean why not make the bay windows angled than boxed to match the original but what the heck is that roof all about!?!

#1 - amusing spoof - I enjoyed it, but I do believe BC might have had a valid point. To copy the original exactly would not have been a pastiche, however, this proposal is a pastiche. It imitates a style. Whether one likes it or no is another matter.

#2 - thanks #2 for the reference - i believe this would clearly have been an altogether more fruitful approach.

Whether this build proceeds in its current guise time will tell, but if it does, please just lose the roof forms? They're of a different language and do not belong.

Tae Glesca

I don't mind the roof (it looks like an amazing place to sit if you owned the flat.) Though they aren't showing us the scheme from the other side, where the roof seems to be very different.

I would like old buildings to be recreated - there's a new monstrosity on the high street just north of the High St/duke street/george street cross that should have just been a recreation of the older corner building. But when was that ever going to happen?

Jeez BC ... It' an interpretation ?! - something you won't have encountered in your strive for all things ... ever ... from now on ... to be just the way were build a hundred years ago. Just you keep sketching the old buildings with yer tongue hangin' oot and the real architects can deal with the future ..

Afraid I don't like that roof at all, or the entrance. They're totally alien to the main body. The main reason for such contrast is to relay a history of development but that doesn't apply here. Otherwise it's clearly of its place and has some validity but I think it needs a lot more work.
By trying to create a stylised tenement it's actually just lacking the detail needed to humanise it and create interest. That doesn't mean it needs to be a direct copy of the adjacent at all though.
Would be interested to see the rear views and whether the opportunity to extend the existing mews type has been taken advantage of.

What wis wrang wi' caves? Everythin' wis magic when we aw had wur ain cave! Open plan, high ceilings, plenty of ventilation - naebody, and I mean NAEBODY died of carbon monoxide poisoning BITD. Bit of animal fur on the ground, big mound of earth furra seat, wee picture of some bison on the walls...champion way to live that.

Noo it's aww windaes and doors: it'll be the end of things, let me tell ye.

Meanwhile back in the real world 2015 to be precise....I quite like this, hopefully the materials used and workmanship are of top quality....#2 build it and they will come!!!

I've been looking to move up to the Park anyway...might buy one of these...

Thanks #10, although there's a youth hostel up there in park circus, so gazillionaires may not be required

speaking as a civilian, it seems like architecture peaked about a hundred years ago (just talking frontage/aesthetics here). There's nothing in glasgow that comes close to buildings like these original tenements, or like the GCC building. Is this just a matter of unwillingness to finance more elaborate work/use better materials?

Not trying to take a dig at any of you, and it might just be personal taste. Not sure...

Really unhappy with this proposal as a local resident. There are too many cars, this exacerbates the traffic and pollution issues beyond a joke. There are issues with school capacity in the local area. Even if design is said to be sympathetic to the listed properties beside it, they will never be regarded as the same quality. There has been a rash of cheap student accommodation built for a quick buck, and while this is not in the same league of short sightedness, no one can argue this proposal will be in the interests of the local population or conservation of the area. Profit over people and heritage once more. Think again.

Glad to see Holmes Miller giving the year out part one's a chance to design something! This design is totally confused as am I.
1. Stone facade treatment to marry in with the existing. Tick
2. Better make the entrance noticeable with some random white precast concrete and Paisley wallpaper. Tick
3. Always had great difficulty in designing roofs - I know lets just make it a wonky random profile, they are easy to do in sketch up. Tick.
Such a lost opportunity given the location and the values these flats will go for.

Our survey says... EH-UH.

@ 13
Sorry, I'm afraid I can't agree with that position at all. I sympathise with the argument that there's not enough investment in local infrastructure (especially schools and public transport in this instance) but that shouldn't stop the densification of our cities, which is easily the most efficient and sustainable way to live (and will lead to the infrastructure that's needed, even if a little late). Your 'profit over people' line could be seen as a cynical and thinly veiled spot of NIMBYism.

The square bay windows look cheap.
I don't understand the entrance design. Does this not just lose bedrooms?
I don't mind the wonky roof idea, but it does look as though it has been designed in 5 minutes.
Previous schemes seem to have ended the terrace with a feature. This just seems to peter out.
Next!

This looks like a very awkward solution. The roofscape looks silly, and the entrance features look very stuck-on and over scaled. Holmes Miller have really let themselves down here with this design. It’s a very cheesy solution for quite a complicated context and in reality the monotony of the elevation width starts to look very overbearing. The width needs to be broken into more human-scale plots, rather than this long continuous repeat of a half-baked composition.

At first sight I thought this was an existing refurb. with some arbitrary new roof additions and wallpaper applied to the entrances however, to my amazement, I read that this is proposed as new?? Beggars belief...

Well Homes Miller this is almost good.
Likes : the form, massing , fenestration orientation and colour and type of cladding material ( given it is actual stone)
Dislikes : the "wonky roof design" is unflattering and really unnecessary
the entrance way with lost windows to the adjoining flats and the "paisley pattern" as someone described it is quite unnecessary.The design of the entrance should make the statement not the materials.
the lack of clarity on what and where the parking is to be and at what percentage per flat
I have a great sense of deja vu as Wimpey( yes Wimpey) did a scheme for this many years ago and this bears a strange resemblance to it.
(ps my team at Wimpey did it ) and Glasgow Planning hated it !!
Well, let's wait and see Perhaps its time has come.

having lived in both modern and tenement flats in Glasgow City centre and West End in recent years I'm not against a development here. It is clearly a valuable plot and presently dark, uninviting woodland, not a significant asset to the local community (aside from its green credentials and indeed with a tidy up, what benefits such a mature woodland could give local children, residents and visitors alike).
I'm thoroughly disappointed at the packed in like sardines design, most notably the volume of cars this adds to the area. While admirable the "original" (I thought a middle break not continuous block) design is being followed to complete an iconic architectural development, when times change, designs gave to be modified accordingly. Present designs gave 100+ additional cars trundling through park circus, up the middle and round the top curve before entering and exiting the development at the same spot (high concentration of noise pollution?). Having driven round there tonight, cars are already in abundance round the outer roads, and will homeowners to what will surely be marketed as luxury flats really just have one car? I fear the abandonment and illegal parking which frequents the west end at night will arise here. Only in such a condensed area, the entire tranquility the park area is renowned for, is threatened.
I'm astounded the council didn't show more imagination before short changing the local community and filling the developers pockets. Such a prime site, sold for a pittance. To think of the positive uses such a site could have been put to....

The odd shaped windows on roof are to give it the look of chimneys to make it fit in , i don't think its worked . They have allotted 1 car park space per flat in the basement but have not worked out where to put entrance to the carpark , they are trying to get a change to road around top of woodlands gate.
Although i don't think the look fits well with the area , my biggest concerns are that they seem ambitious with the pricing of the flats which could leave them taking too long to sell damaging the area property value and their build time is too short meaning they will take short cuts , or be careless with keeping to allowed times for making noise . This will be very disruptive to local life for a long long time.

What about the flats on Lynedoch place? Will they get any sun at all with 6 story flats blocking all views?

The current design is not appropriate. The developer and planning department should look at the original Charles Wilson plan for Park Quadrant. The council said in a statement on stv news, they want to see the completion of his 'architectural masterpiece'. If that's the case, they should adapt and build flats and underground parking within his design. There's a real opportunity for councillors, local residents developers, architects and conservation groups to unite behind a fitting (and I reckon popular) addition to the City of Culture, the City of Architecture and Design's heritage. Let's all come together to support a unique opportunity to complete Wilson's plan for future generations.

Not their finest hour. A tad clunky