I don't quite understand the rationale behind any of this. It seems to me that Easterhouse has found its natural population threshold- for a place so far away from the central urban core- so why build 6000 new homes there? There are swathes of brownfield sites in the East End close to the urban core that could be developed in order to stitch up the build fabric of the inner city ( as well as bringing people close to the city for work, play, travel convenience etc). Bellgrove, Gallowgate, huge swathes of Dalmarnock ( even before we consider the disastrous vacancies in the Barras areas) are areas with existing transport infrastructure & in walking distance of the city. For me it would more sense to prioritize these areas.

Twenty years? How long has the Council owned the land? Another lost generation and no sense of urgency. If the Council and other public sector agencies were charged Annual Ground Rent on all their land they would have disposed of it long ago to others who have the funds to build the homes, etc. The community would have been regenerated many years ago.

#1 This is a dreary attempt by McAveety to varnish Easterhouse, and Easterhouse alone, simply because it's his neck of the woods and controls his political destiny. It wasn't nice for Frankie boy when his only job was being gifted a made-up job by GCC as the Cycling Lanes Tzar.

The welfare of the rest of the city doesn't come into it. Witness when he played at being Culture Secretary (Jeez...remember the days when we had a govern...sorry, *Executive* which placed Culture in the hands of Frank McAveety?) As Culture Secretary he was charged with finding an HQ for the nascent National Theatre of Scotland. The ideal choice would obviously have been to place it somewhere close to the Royal Conservatoire, where actors, directors, writers and the like have reason to be. Somewhere close to theatres, and transport links for the rest of the country. Somewhere that allowed visitors to take advantage of a large city. An opportunity to create a hub, of sorts. Frank plonked it in...Easterhouse.

Now, they're largely based at Spiers Lock, which is where they should have been in the first place. It only took a dozen or so years to fix that. This will be the same. No-one will want to move there, let alone 6000 households with no prior connection to the place. It's inconvenient, low on facilities and infrastructure. But it might just secure McAveety and his cronies a few more years over the pork barrel, so tally-ho.

Easterhouse seems to be crawling out of the ashes to become a decent town, with a proper town centre, cinema, champagne swigging restaurants, decent sport centres, motorway access, train stations, access to Edinburgh/Carlisle, a small community college and a theatre!

People do want to live in the east end of Glasgow in the suburbs for these reasons, plus its affordable. 6000 new homes will bring more civic pride to Easterhouse, more introduction of new people and residents. I am all for this. Change the old "big four" schemes into proper urban towns where people want to buy there.

Ross I really hope so- I'm not so sure- for me, fixing the inner city areas makes more sense. But then if it means attracting suburbanites from places likes Coatbridge, Cumbernauld or even prevent young couples from moving to places like EK, then I'm all for it. Sometimes its easy for the likes of me to forget lots of people want a garden, a slower pace of life & the kind of privacy that comes with a suburban lifestyle.

This project is not worth two decades of effort.
It should be done in 5 years with all the ghost streets in the area.

Plus building new stuff is just wasted effort when what is already there is not looked after.

The Bridge is a case in point.
Poor design looking very tired at the moment.
Dirt traps and leaks in the roof.
Outside areas desperately need some cleaning.
Public realm is very run down.
Scotland, especially public sector Scotland isn't very good at upkeep and maintenance.