Campaigns

Broomielaw Development

NGS have filed the following letter with planning. For the developers own website with information and videos please see here.

Dear Sirs,

The New Glasgow Society wish to register our objection to Planning Application ref 11/01234/DC, Site at Riverside Walkway Between McAlpine Street/York Street On Broomielaw Glasgow- aka ‘Broomielaw Quay’. Whilst we recognize that the area is in need of amenity, our objection is specific to the design and size and positioning of the buildings, and is founded on three key issues:

1- Architectural and aesthetic grounds.

Glasgow’s Clyde waterfront is the last area of untapped potential within the City Centre. The recent upgrade of the landscape has been a huge success, and brought much needed amenity to the area. Whilst we acknowledge it is essential that the Broomielaw area is serviced by retail, restaurant and coffee outlets in order to facilitate the further expansion of the IFSD, we believe this ‘urban park’ is a valuable asset, and it is vitally important that this is maintained and preserved when developing the area further.

Design-

• This area carries a great opportunity for simple, elegant built interventions that enhance the public realm, rather than dominate the waterfront landscape. We believe that the proposed development is wholly inappropriate for the site. The four ‘pavilions’ are lumpen and inelegant rather than a complimentary addition to the site. The animated fly-through describes a glitzy cheapness to the architecture, and an overbearing feel to the development. In City plan 2, Guidance DES 1 – ‘Development Design Principles’ states that a development should: -demonstrate the highest standards of urban design which respects context, setting, local townscape and landscape character; -reflect high quality contemporary design, where appropriate, which is imaginative, innovative and sympathetic to local traditions, and which creates a strong sense of place; We feel strongly that this proposal does NOT meet the criteria stated in any way. The heavy ‘wrap’ form to each pavilion reflects a brief phase of architectural fashion from the mid 1990’s. It is neither forward thinking in planning terms, nor contemporary in aesthetic. The spaces between the buildings are stunted and appear residual as the built form curves away from them on both sides. Two of the four pavilions are sited either side of the new pedestrian bridge head. This cultivates a unique condition at this point, as this major pedestrian thoroughfare effectively becomes part of the development. However, treatment of the spaces between all of the buildings is identical. This is an architectural flaw- an opportunity missed. This is NOT simply an issue of differing personal taste. We should be encouraging much more ambitious, creative uses of space, which not only respond to the anticipated & temporary commercial demands associated with an increased number of tourists but, which can test the future demands of the city. An attitude to the creative re-use of the existing infrastructure sited closely to the proposed site should be enhanced. We have included an example of a development we feel would provide a more appropriate precedent. This scheme by Stanton Williams adjacent to the Tower of London describes a similar programme, where shops and restaurants are subtly and elegantly integrated into a sensitive urban landscape.

Materials-

• The choice of materials is equally inappropriate. The shiny, thin metal cladding proposed in the application has become common place in building projects around the UK over the last 10-15 years. We believe it has a relatively short lifespan and its appearance will quickly deteriorate, given the location and climate. City plan 2, Guidance DES 1 – ‘Development Design Principles’ has specific guidance on these issues, stating that an applicant should: select materials in accordance with life cycle assessment. There is a preference for materials which attain an A rating under the British Research Establishment’s (BRE) Green Guide to Specification www.bre.co.uk specify only durable materials that will fit their context, are capable of retaining their appearance over time and are appropriate to Glasgow’s climate. Evidence of the maintenance requirements of the materials specified will require discussion with the Council and will be a consideration by the Council in assessing development proposals;

Context-

• The placing, massing and visual impact of the pavilions is ill-considered. This area is of such great importance, and holds such potential, we are extremely disappointed that the proposals are not of a higher quality. The project website claims- ‘The pavilions will be restricted to 2-storeys in height, a reflection of the scale of the shipping sheds which historically sat on the Quayside, and to maintain views from the existing buildings on Broomielaw.’ This is an extremely tenuous link as there is clearly no relationship to the shipping sheds which formerly occupied the site, and the pavilions are closer to three storeys in height, rather than two, when the rooftop plant space is taken into consideration. The screening to this plant area forms part of the ‘wrap’ design, which when brought to the façade of the building makes the overall height much greater. City plan 2, Guidance DES 1 – ‘Development Design Principles’ advises that a development should: take account of other Plan policies and development guides, as appropriate. To secure a high quality of urban design throughout the City Centre, the design of new development must respect the context established by the urban morphology and density of the existing, but varied, townscape. Reflecting this diverse character, new development should respect the individual characteristics of the City Centre Identity Areas. We strongly urge the Committee to review the wording of this guidance note and apply it to this Application.

2- Scale and massing

The forms are visually heavy and rise to three storeys in height when the rooftop plant space is taken into consideration. The shiny metallic ‘wrap’ is cumbersome and visually dominant, rather than complementary to the undulations and idiosyncrasies of the south facing elevation of the City. We are very concerned that the four restaurant pavilions, each incorporating 250 covers, constitutes over development of the site. 1000 dining places is an excessively ambitious move and we feel it needs to be broken down with different scales and sizes of prospective businesses, such as sandwich shops and coffee outlets. This would assist in eroding the heavy repetitious form that the four blocks currently hold. The height and scale of the block will also have a detrimental effect on the Broomielaw itself. The ‘pavilions’ are clearly orientated towards the river. However the drawings may present it, this leaves a ‘back of house’ condition facing onto the Broomielaw. This leaves an obvious service access zone to the ‘rear’ of each building. If the pavilions were less restrictive in form, these essential services could be more effectively enveloped within the building fabric. The front to back ‘wrap’ makes this extremely difficult. City plan 2: DES 1 - Development Design Principles also contains specific guidance notes on these issues, recommending that developments should- have regard to local plot patterns, building lines, heights, scale, massing, detailed design, use of materials and micro-climate ensure that the siting, form, scale, proportions, detailed design and use of materials do not detract from the visual amenity of the existing or surrounding buildings and wider area; ensure that there is no undue impact on the amenity or development potential of adjacent land and that there is no adverse impact on existing or proposed properties in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight (see Note 2), overshadowing, noise or disturbance

3- Proximity to the river

Development of the Clyde riverfront is key to the regeneration of Glasgow and to the successful integration of the city with the future Commonwealth Games site and therefore any proposed reduction of the pedestrian & cycle path from the recently opened Riverside Museum to the site of the commonwealth is counterintuitive. The existing area of new landscaping along the Broomielaw between the Kingston Bridge and the new pedestrian bridge is the only area within the proximity of the city centre where the Clyde can really be fully enjoyed and appreciated. The area is very busy in good weather, not just at lunchtime, Monday to Friday, but weekends also. It is very popular with cyclist and runners, and is a great place to allow children to play safely. There is NOWHERE in the city quite like it. The Anderston/Broomielaw district of the IFSD is in great need of local amenity services, but acknowledgement of the great popularity that this wee urban park has gained is vital when considering a proposal of this nature. The four ‘pavilions’ proposed are of such a size that the preservation of the river walk is in severe jeopardy. The buildings will encroach onto the river edge, narrowing the river walk down to 5 meters in places. This is in direct contravention of the guidance noted in DES 5: Development and Design Guidance for the River Clyde and Forth and Clyde Canal Corridors, City Plan 2: A continuous footway/cycleway along the bank of the River should be maintained or created, which should be a minimum of 6 metres wide, or 10 metres if street furniture is proposed. The success of development of this nature is based on the use of street furniture- all of the images and drawings presented show this. Therefore we would expect the development to be no less than 10 metres from the river edge at any point. The Guidance goes on to state: Development, in close proximity to the riverside, should include a townscape analysis in their Design Statement to specifically assess impacts on the waterfront and surrounding area We would hope that this study has been carried out, and we would encourage the Committee to be particularly critical of the evidence provided.

Conclusion

We would like to appeal to the Committee in the strongest terms possible to refuse this application. Our membership is adamant that the architecture of this development is substandard and that it does not meet the criteria stated in City Plan 2, referenced within this letter. The buildings proposed are cumbersome and bulky and clearly show that the site is in need of a differing range of scales of structures in order to complement the urban environment effectively. We believe the proposals represent cheap, poor quality architecture that is far from the standard of design that Glasgow requires and deserves. We respectfully offer our objections to you for consideration.

Yours sincerely, New Glasgow Society

Egyptian Halls

For more details on the Egyptian Halls issue please refer here. Please also note the letter below regarding the decision on this proposal.