'set new standards in urban planning' - doesn't say they are high standards.
Mac & Mic - consistently lowering the bar.
Also, is it so difficult to choose a palette of materials that actually go together? That 'reconstituted stone' is awful.

"respect the existing village", did they bother visiting the actual village.

"The estate has been designed to respect the existing village and neighbouring moorland." - what does this even mean, how as this attempted to incorporate the local architecture.

Didn't Mr Salmond & Co champion this as Scotland's first eco-village. Whats eco about this?

http://www.s1homes.com/scottish-property-news/2009-11-23-1.shtml

I think it looks awful! A design award? Is someone taking the mic (no pun intended!)

Set new standards? This is pretty much top end of Castlemillk or Townhead. Exactly the same layout, possibly even cheaper materials. Does this improve the existing environment / landscape? If not, why build it?

Will be interesting how quickly the white render will age badly in an exposed place like Eaglesham moor. I must admit to agreeing with the above: it looks like 1970's council housing that has been renovated with a new facade.

I've driven past this development and can confirm that it looks really terrible. How they got approval for this in a nice conservation village like Eaglesham, I'll never know.
The grey render is already looking discoloured and weathered and there is absolutely no 'respect' for the surroundings in any aspect of this development - very poor show indeed from MacMic and Proctor & Matthews.

I can concur with George.

I drove around the development yesterday, to have a look at this "New Standard".
Unfortunately, the bar is fairly low, if this is what we have to aim for.

It reminds me of developments in Cumbernauld or Erskine from over 40 years ago.
Nothing really new in style, except for the stick on chimneys and acid trip smooth render feature panels around the windows.
The buff recon stone to walls and base courses are extremely garish and badly coursed. It doesn't sit well with the pale dash render at all.

The entrance canopies are very strange too, both in design and aesthetic; their terrible detailing has lead to some of the doorways already showing signs staining.

I appreciate this is meant to be the key development to champion Designing for Streets, but I found the amount of hard-standing an uncomfortable and very expensive response. Surely there is a better solution to achieve DfS.

In all, I feel this development will probably look outdated by the end of this decade.
Which is not very good if we are trying establish a new standard in my opinion.

Worth noting that the original elevational treatment and colour palette was far bolder - UR's link in the article should give you an idea. It seems MacMic got cold feet further down the line and substituted in the white uPVC windows and odd beige bits, losing the larger contrasting panels that would have given the elevations rather more life.

Re post#3..."design award"....inevitable...Mac & Mic will sponsor the event to ensure it...as usual

Re-looking at the photos - why did they add that dead semi enclosed space at ground level? They actually made a flat smaller to allow for it (look at photo 1 and 2). Am baffled as why would you decrease living space for a wasted void?

Brillianrt. Lots of people have driven past it! Has anyone actuall bothered to walk round? No, you prefer to pass comment on some pretty poor external photos of one tiny element of a 100+ unit development. Glad to see you architects aren't superficial! Also not sure how you sponsor the Saltire Awards for innovation in housing, which this scheme won? Away back to your kitchen extensions.

.........and I think you'll fined they are white timber windows.

Oooo. Someone’s a little touchy. I can only assume you have bought one of the £500k monstrosities and are very proud of its wonderful architecture.

I can say that I have driven past, walked around and visited one or two of the houses and I must concur with the sentiments above. The idea that it is someone setting a new standard is highly concerning. I can only assume that new standard is one of cheap materials, boring architecture and poor detailing.

The people who buy these houses don't give a toss about architecture. These homes are only being snapped up at exorbitant prices due to their postcode in the hope that their children will be sent to one of the 'better' schools within the catchment area. The developers can do what they please and name their price.

Any meaningful discussion on the architectural merits of the scheme is entirely wasted, unfortunately.

We can't all live in a converted barn or a Victorian villa. Superficial architects slagging each other off.

@ Walt Disney - whilst you are entitled to your opinion, so are we. No one has personally attacked you or your taste, or lack of, so why are you attacking everyone else?

This estate is not unique and the non-architecture looks like a standrd 1970's council or even Wimpey estate that has been painted white. There are homes and estates exactly like it all over Scotland. One wonders what new standards it is setting in urban design as it is not unique: it is a multiphase mass housing estate with the usual marketing blurb of 'village', 'vibrant', 'energy efficient' and 'family friendly'.

Take a look at the original masterplan

http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/292798/0090361.pdf

and compare the finished article to see how far MacMic have diluted the original Proctor and Mathews ideas.

A missed opportunity. A look at Proctor Mathews website might give you a flavour of how this could have looked before it was "value-engineered".