June 24 2019

Osborne + Co (formerly Vanguard Real Estate) will be hoping it’s a case of third-time in their attempts to win planning for a significant new office build on Glasgow’s Argyle Street with the submission of their latest revised bid for planning.

Evolving a more ‘contextual’ approach to the city centre site the third iteration has again been brought forward by architects Cooper Cromar, this time seeking to reduce its 14 storey mass by introducing a high-level setback and subdividing the north elevation into three visual elements.

Espousing their design principles the architects wrote: “A key driver informing proposals is the notion of the emerging city moving westwards along Argyle Street with higher level elements set back to emphasise the lower 10 storey portion of urban form facing onto Argyle Street together with crafted massing to improve environmental conditions.”

“The proposals present an enhanced colonnade to Argyle Street offering opportunity for a sheltered pedestrian route from the Hielanman’s Umbrella and Radisson Blu.”

Providing 270,000sq/ft of grade A floorspace behind a simple masonry grid the latest proposal would meet the street via a recessed colonnade, with public realm to be adopted in line with the Argyle Street Avenue project.

8 Comments

#1 Posted by Why list buildings if you won't protect them? on 24 Jun 2019 at 15:46 PM

This proposal is slightly better than the one previously submitted.

The real issue for this site is the demolition of a B listed property on the grounds that it is beyond 'economic repair'. Why is there no accountability from the owner/developer?

Own a 4 storey listed building in the city centre? Well just let it go to wrack and ruin and then we will let you knock it down and build a 14 storey building which is obviously significantly more profitable than keeping the listed building even prior to it falling into disrepair.

#2 Posted by Neil C on 24 Jun 2019 at 15:53 PM

Nice building, imposing addition to the Argyle Street skyline, and the colonnade (you might want to check your caption spelling, UR!) lends some gravitas. But as #1 points out, the demolition of what's there already is shameful.

#3 Posted by EM0 on 24 Jun 2019 at 15:54 PM

Agree with previous post, some form of even facade retention of listed building should be incorporated somehow ! - welcome to charm and characterless Glasgow!!

#4 Posted by Billy on 25 Jun 2019 at 08:15 AM

I have given up. The facade of the building should be retained. I bet the neglect of listed buildings would not be tolerated in other cities and certainly not in France. Hefty penalties are required for those who allow listed buildings to fall into such disrepair. This is our heritage which is slowly being destroyed. And it needs to stop. Maybe a local paper or politician should start a campaign to raise public awareness of what has been going on for over 30 years.... listed buildings become neglected, at risk of falling down , demolished because of risk to safety, uneconomical to repair, go on fire... any one of these or combination of these reasons. Back to this development. I like it but not at the expense of a listed building. In a city known for rain we should encourage all new developments to have covered walkways .

#5 Posted by Glasgow Bob on 26 Jun 2019 at 06:15 AM

#Billy. What has been going on for 30 years is that these buildings now closed and boarded up are still uneconomic to repair. Greek Thomson building on Union street, lion chambers, building on the corner of George square to name a few, are sitting slowly rotting because of costs not stacking up. Even others that are in use are not being suitably maintained. What to do? Government intervention or is that too nanny state? Raise awareness to do what? Have a whip round to help the developer or negligent owner/s? Indeed back to this development. Get. It. Built. Make Glasgow great again. Oh wait a minute....
Though perhaps the demolition companies could save some of the features to reuse as much as possible, here or elsewhere. Training up people as they go in suitable methods of salvage sustainability creating a new improved industry?

#6 Posted by boaby wan on 26 Jun 2019 at 10:01 AM

@Glasgow Bob - there's a very fine line between being "uneconomical to repair" and "not being allowed to change the building to maximise profit"
There are a few instances where it's more the stubbornness or unwillingness for the owners to accept less profit on these properties than they want and no desire to sell them on...

#7 Posted by Glasgow Bob on 26 Jun 2019 at 21:09 PM

boaby wan, Greek Thomson on Union street in a good example. Graspin soutar hasn't moved the project forward an inch since he bought it - well the eyesore scaff is a backward step. Must be a fine line as he'd have done it to worldwide acclaim rather that sit and take pelters?.

#8 Posted by boaby wan on 27 Jun 2019 at 11:42 AM

Glasgow Bob,
As i understand it, there was a whole series of legal issues because of the CPO the city council had done on this building?
And it looks like he hasn't done anything because, the only thing he wants to do isn't being supported - the building itself may be economical to repair for a specific use or purpose but it's not what the owner of the building wants to do with it... and I can't see a second CPO being used on this one since the city council made such a mess of the first one and sold it to the current owner!
It's not costs not stacking up, it's profits not being maximised which holds back a lot of renovation/redevelopment

Post your comments