Big Chantelle is gonna love this!

I really think the proposal has an excellent aesthetic quality. My only concern is that some of the proportions look a little weird. It is also certainly the case that the material pallet needs to be perfect.

It obviously lacks the delicacy and finesse of the originals...clunky even.

The bays, entrance and (horrendous) 'batman ears' are really clumsy. Otherwise, quite nice.

I see a rival proposal has now been lodged for planning too:
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14343835.Residents_fighting_Park_Quadrant_development_lodge_competing_plans_for_community_garden/

FFS!

If the original park circus is so good an it is, why dae ya need tae add on a new bit which is architecturally different and much crappier?

Whit is this problem architects huv wae building things tae match thur surroundings? Do ye hink if ye build a butiful arch wae columns tae match the exiting buildings that the apocalypse will cum? It's awready here -- CUMBERNAULD SHOPPING CENTRE!

This hale "let's be different and unapologetically modern" stuff is merely a slogan fur architects tae hide behind their value engineered dross whilst maintaining they are still creating sumthing worthwhile and progressive. It's also how the lefty brigade justify their abominations -- by saying they want tae be "of oor time" thus we need tae make it different. And it exposes thur arrogance that they hink what forms and shapes they decide upon iz whit is of ooor time.

But whit the mensa rejects ae the Motherwell polytechnic concrete luvin' society fail tae understand is that the hing they're trying to differentiate from is outstanding and doesnae need improving upon! Ye only need tae continue the housing as is.

But then, that would involve the lefties huvvin tae build something wae, god forbid, a wee bit ae traditional architecture.

@ Gringo. Not sure who's judgement is worse; the righteous and wealthy NIMBYs or a developer who thought the name Expresso Property was any good.

An approach to design that assumes that every site has its own history, character and needs means that any new proposal is derived from its context and buildings therefore respond to underlying themes of materiality, scale and proportion whilst also revealing a commitment to contemporary design and detailing.

This is the 21st century and not the 18th afterall. Things change.

@Stephen, I agree- even if the proposed architecture is a bit lacking, at least it completes the circus to the original intent. The 'community garden' is much more out of place in my opinion.

I preferred Big Chantelle when she (he) didn't put the accent on...

A positive, contemporary-but-contextual proposal that will complement the magnificent Park Circus.

Big Chantelle

I'm confused by your comments....you say the "lefty brigade" will be delighted by this, yet surely value engineering is another name for capitalism?

Seems a decent starting point.
To me the facades look they have too much horizontal emphasis, compared to the their project at Minerva Street

@aftershocker. Seriously, don't waste your time. Logic and historical fact (less still other commentators) don't influence that particular troll.

@aftershocker

There's nothing tae be confused about. I'll gie ya a breakdown. Oor society is ruled wae left wing doctrine hence why we are surrounded by a deluge ae perversion wae every bint an his dug drowning in a sea ae moral decay.

Oor built environments also git affected. This hale rejection ae traditionalism is rooted in a hatred ae Judeo-Christian civilistaion. Ur tae put it another way -- liberals ur making the wurld intae their vision ae whit a wurld shid look like and this includes buildings.

Yer also making a mistake in assuming that sumone canne be culturally orientated towards liberalism whilst partaking in the fruits ae profiteering at oor expense. That's becoz these liberals urnae full on commies......yet. Thus, they dinnae quite believe in the hale 'equality' hing although they like to talk aboot it tae make themselves sound educated to ordinary folk such as Big Moira who a alluded tae in ma comment above.

If park circus is great architecture and it is then why can't it be completed as wiz intended?

Who ur these architects tae hink they can complete the building better than what the original plan intended? It's like when all these architects proposed to redo the Glesga school ae art differently tae whit Mackintosh designed it tae be. They were like vultures scavaging on Makintosh's masterpiece. Sick. Debased.

Is whit's being currently proposed whit was planned originally by the original architect(s)? Naw, it isnae. You all know this. So why ur yez aw acting like "well, isn't it so positively scrumptious that a modern completion is being added to this building completing it even tho the original architects intended for the completed part to erm, match what was built". Wht is proposed is an abomination. A plook on an arse cheek.

Who ur you lot kiddin?

While I'm not wild on the Expresso scheme, the alternative proposal, featured in the link, is very poor and not of suitable quality for such a high profile site. Park Quadrant has been zoned as residential for over thirty years and there is clear historic justification of completion of the quadrant. Quite how any one can justify building another park in such close proximity to Kelvingrove...

The Architecture lacks confidence . It's Psuedo classical but not appealing like the period Architecture. If Charles Wilson and his apprentices Boucher Couskand et al ..were alive now they would not be doing this.
It's all holes in thin stone work and I wonder if there is any point in stonework. Would it not be better to have confidence in the future. Trouble is that important elements of the city like this are not compulseraly put out to open competition to find the best solution and therefor the solutions are missed# let's have more competitions # if this was in Berlin
Private dominating public as ever .
The park is public as a sky scape this will not add anything

A subtle contemporary version of the bay window concept of the neighbouring buildings should have been explored.
The current design is lazy, weak and jars.
Apart from that the rest of it is fine.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14487914.Architects_probed_over_backing_for_flats_plans_proposal/

interesting development if true