Hmm,not a very articulate effort.It looks like the building is floating above the street. Its street elevation needs to have the sandstone( or whatever material ) continued down to the pavement like every other building on this frontage shown on the CAD mock up.

Cheap... like the budgie

I fear for this. The quality of the Planning submission leaves a lot to be desired, and referencing awful '80's infill in the design statement should tell us all something about the aspirations of quality here.

I won't be holding my breath for anything other than rubbish given what's on show.

Agree with comment 1 also. If there is one single thing that would make this contextual, is to make the solid mass sit on the ground.

Doesn't seem to compliment or enhance the buildings on either side . The Bank building at the corner of Sauchiehall Street and Blythswood Street is particularly handsome.

Bland. At least it's tucked away and not trying to compete with the beautiful bank next door. Would not give it a second glance given the beauty next door. Not sure if this was their commercial intention though.

#3 David,
Way too harsh by far.
I’m interested. What specific aspect of the quality of the submission 'leaves a lot to be desired'?
The two previous applications mentioned in the D&A statement are stated solely as historical fact. Where does it say in the D&A that these two examples are aspired to? - It doesn't. Don’t make stuff up and accuse others.
Regarding your ‘grounding’ point and context - Quite simply, in the words of Jimmy Sommerville - it ain't necessarily so.
Billy's point was a good deal nearer the mark about ‘commercial intention’.
So, irrespective of architects quibbling about how this is done or that is done, sometimes by far the most satisfactory architectural approach is to be ‘still’. Some say bland, some say restrained. So what? If the client had wanted Co-op Himmelblau, I am sure they would’ve hired them. They didn’t. Or who knows, they might even have gone to you, but again they didn’t. You pays your money…
Of course, the democratic design process will also have had a significant input in this outcome i.e. the planner and the client. The Architect can do well in this process sometimes just to obtain permissions and be paid for their labour.
There's also something to be said that this is only a planning application. It is yet, no more than dots of ink on paper and still to be developed in detail and gone through other lengthy and painstaking processes i.e. designed and built.
So why all the huffing and puffing over what is a clearly considered and modest building?