December 26 2019

Noah Developments are to follow up their delivery of six townhouses at Partickhill with proposals to build 40 flats and public open space at Mount Florida Bowling Club following its closure.

A design team comprising jmarchitects, RankinFraser and Blyth & Blyth has been brought on board with plans to create lower duplex apartments with flats stacked above in two blocks fronting Carmunnock Road behind an existing landscaped embankment, leaving a crescent of public open space to the rear.

In their design statement the architects observed: “Each building is designed ‘in the round’ with no clear hierarchy given to any one elevation due to the unique site context in which the buildings are located.

“Large fixed windows flood the internal spaces with light while slimmer opening windows are served by fixed glazed balustrades which function as a minimalistic protective barrier whilst the windows are in operation.”

Each block will be finished in weathered light grey/cream brick with deep vertical stack bond/soldier course bands and projecting balconies enlivening each elevation.

21 Comments

#1 Posted by James Hepburn on 27 Dec 2019 at 14:13 PM

Gosh! Noah Developments have certainly put a lot of thought into these.

#2 Posted by Berty Bassett on 6 Jan 2020 at 11:02 AM

I’m bowled over by this development. Good job team.

#3 Posted by Jimmy Tuppenceworth on 6 Jan 2020 at 11:22 AM

Will be really interested to follow this one. Design looks of this epoch but with added interest. jmarchitects doing a good job of following and bucking the trend at the same time with their design. Deep soldier courses are a winner in my view and the choice of brick and how they interact with the windows / balustrades will be key. It’s sure to be a contentious project and the open space being offered seems way in excess of what a developer might traditionally present which is nice to see. I’ll be ‘watching this space’ but on the face of it I’d say a nicely considered scheme. Hope it evolves with as much consideration as presented in the application.

#4 Posted by Sue Pearman on 6 Jan 2020 at 11:31 AM

It seems like a well thought out design in itself BUT is it really appropriate for this location?... The whole area around here is characterised by 2 storey terraced housing and the only available open space is the bowling green. The character of the area will be dramatically changed with this intervention and the open space will be a great loss, not only to those that use the bowling green. There is obviously a wider debate to be had about the loss of recreation areas for development...

#5 Posted by wonky on 6 Jan 2020 at 13:15 PM

'2 storey terraced housing and the only available open space is the bowling green. The character of the area will be dramatically changed with this intervention', this seems like a strange observation for someone who knows the area fairly well. Kings Park road, ONE road away, is lined with four storey tenements- this specific site stands adjacent to a 3 storey set of 40s style tenements as well/ and it also lies just outside the Mount Florida tenement zone- its hardly 'dramatic' or some radical 'intervention' in the character of the area.

#6 Posted by Eternal Optimist on 6 Jan 2020 at 13:29 PM

I predict hysteria, petitions, Facebook campaigns, just giving campaigns, leaflet drops, town hall meetings, angry people on Twitter and witch trials regarding this proposal.....from people who either don’t understand what they are talking about, or don’t even bother to read and properly digest the application INCLUDING all relevant reports and supporting information / Studies.

A cursory glance at the Design and Access statement responds, amongst other things, gives a flavour of the building typologies in the vicinity. Hardly a quaint conservation town or Disney’s Celebration...

#7 Posted by StyleCouncil on 6 Jan 2020 at 13:32 PM

Aggressively urban and completely out of context. Perhaps even if it were to be broken up it could at least settle more appropriately within the (sub)urban grain.
Architecturally bland.

#8 Posted by pooka on 6 Jan 2020 at 13:55 PM

you know things have gone wrong when they have to add too much flare to the images just to jazz them up a bit

#9 Posted by Pleasantfield on 6 Jan 2020 at 14:46 PM

Read the accompanying statements as suggested by Eternal optimist. Well he must be!!. Because this is not right. Style Council has it right. Even the colour is wrong.

#10 Posted by Brownfield on 6 Jan 2020 at 16:05 PM

‘Even the colour is wrong’.

Deary me, some people with only a few words really give a flavour of the type of person they are...

Let’s be brutally honest here. The development as proposed is by no means shocking, regardless of the pompous commentary from the keyboard rambos.

Considering the architects, it can be said with a fair degree of certainty that the buildings in whatever final form they take will be well considered and detailed to a high level.

Suggest the statements are read and considered again son. If not, then jog on and take your negativity with you.

#11 Posted by modernish on 6 Jan 2020 at 16:30 PM

What is the point of the circulation space (alongside the communal stair) at the first floor if there is no access to the common stair from the duplexes?

#12 Posted by Huggy Bear on 6 Jan 2020 at 18:18 PM

Nothing wrong with a bit of flare.

#13 Posted by Can’t find me on 6 Jan 2020 at 18:20 PM

Modernist, the circulation space is clearly for playing hide and seek in. Additional amenity towards the project total? Genius!

#14 Posted by StyleCouncil on 6 Jan 2020 at 18:44 PM

#10 your right , it’s by no means ‘shocking’...just another coma induced brick facsimile apartment building by the usually suspects.
No amount of crisp detailing can mitigate the inappropriate strategy of urbanising the site in such a bombastic manor.
Are JM Architects so good they are above criticism?...mmmm

#15 Posted by Brownfield on 6 Jan 2020 at 20:43 PM

#14 - I wouldn’t know, you’d have to haul them over the coals for a response on that one but you know fine well that nobody is above criticism.

You have your bees in your bonnet regarding the design and that’s fine, but come on, get off your high horse and slap yourself with a sense of realism. This isn’t desecrating the ‘insert your masterpiece here’ - it’s proposing apartment blocks of a not too dissimilar scale from blocks in the immediate vicinity in order to meet a brief. In Glasgow... There are moves to set the design apart from the standard stuff we are seeing all over the shop - but the reality is it is nigh on impossible to produce anything of substantial / material difference in this city. Firstly because clients won’t allow it. Secondly because planners won’t allow it. Thirdly, because it will never live up to the standards of the great scholars who congregate on urban realm.

#16 Posted by pooka on 7 Jan 2020 at 12:37 PM

methinks the architect or developer is not liking the views of others here...

#17 Posted by Mike on 11 Jan 2020 at 14:23 PM

Oh dear, what a wasted opportunity. Looks really uninspired and bland for a space that could do so much more- unsympathetic. I understand trying to deliver quality akin to period buildings is expensive, but this is just terrible looking in that location; I walk by sometimes and know the area well. Also I understand a local community group has submitted a parallel application giving much more publicly usable space. Interesting to see how this one develops, by no means a done deal; definitely not game on yet.

#18 Posted by Kate Dingwall Reid on 23 Jan 2020 at 08:11 AM

We hope this proposal won’t be built. It needs to be seen in the context in which it is being built. Next to a school with no green space, highly urbanised environment, Hamden park stadium, parking pressure and large building projects ongoing at Homelea Scottish Power, Battlefield Royal infirmary site and other sites all within 250/500 meters away. We are under strain to find community space to meet one another, to let our kids play and engage with nature - the community wants to buy this land and we hope to do this if planning is not provided to build. See these new buildings in context of the community - must every pocket of flexible open space originally given to the community for recreational and social use be built upon?

#19 Posted by Judge Rudy on 23 Jan 2020 at 21:55 PM

#18 the problem is, the entire world can see what you local residents are - scared and ultimately gutted that this development is taking place on your doorstep. It’s an absolute classic case of too little too late and we see it time and time again. Nobody cares until it affects them directly and what really irks the general population are the ‘urgent campaigns’ which are set up in desperation - as if you actually care about something other than preserving your outlook! If this was such an important part of the community, why must it close before anyone cares? Good luck with your campaigning and enjoy your new view when it inevitably comes.

#20 Posted by Answer-Giver on 23 Jan 2020 at 21:58 PM

#18 says: ‘must every pocket of flexible open space originally given to the community for recreational and social use be built upon?’


Answer: Yes.

#21 Posted by Jonathan Clarke on 28 Jan 2020 at 15:40 PM

Baffling placement that ought to not go ahead. These sorts of flats fit around the Laurieston development, but look ridiculous having sandstone Victorian buildings on all four sides.
Seems like a mssive waste of community greenspace too, since the 'greenspace' being offered here is to be maintained by residnets(!) rather than say, a community council of elected members.

Post your comments