Sold down the river Full article and comments
Exclusive
A £300million plan to redevelop Tradeston is being put at risk by a dilapidated warehouse.
Historic Scotland sparked a furious reaction from the developers and the city council after refusing permission to knock down the B-listed Beco building in Glasgow's Kingston Street.
John Smyth, the man behind the plan to breathe new life into the largely derelict area, is "baffled".
And council leader Steven Purcell is believed to be furious that Culture Minister Patricia Ferguson has backed the decision.
advertisementA City Chambers source said the building was a "monstrosity" and they were "gobsmacked" by Historic Scotland's recommendation.
"It is of no worth to Glasgow's heritage," he said.
"This is delaying a project worth in excess of £300m, with more than 1000 riverside apartments with complementary retail and leisure components. And that doesn't include public sector investment of around £40m in the new pedestrian bridge."
The development has been planned in several stages to transform the derelict warehouses and dock buildings across the Clyde from the city's financial district.
Phase one will begin soon, but the developer warned the second phase was now on the "back burner".
The council source added: "This has the potential to knock back this regeneration by a couple of years. It could knock it back by 10 years if the economic cycle changes and there's a downturn.
"Under those circumstances building new neighbourhoods and homes won't be as attractive a proposition as they are at the moment. This isn't just about the £300m investment, this is also about the jobs that go along with it.
"This is a key plank on the regeneration of the Clyde which Jack McConnell said was a national priority.
"We're absolutely bemused that this decision has been taken."
Mr Smyth also hit out at Ms Ferguson's decision.
He said: "This certainly doesn't encourage the regeneration of Tradeston.
"It's an old dilapidated warehouse which from our engineers' report is not particularly structurally sound.
"Our conservation experts say it's not of intrinsic value either as a building type or as an individual building.
"It means that we will have to go back and reconsider the second block of the regeneration plan."
Three hundred and thirty apartments are due to be built as part of that phase.
Mr Smyth added: "I've been an architect since 1978 and have dealt with English Heritage and its equivalent in Ireland and gone through the process on many occasions of fighting for and against the retention of listed buildings.
"We're pro-development, but we're practical people as well and I've never come across either a process or a decision of this nature in all my career.
"It is very difficult to understand the basis on which Historic Scotland thought it was worthwhile keeping, and more difficult to understand why the Minister who would have had another agenda - looking at the overall context - would go against the local authority of Glasgow City Council.
"We decided to keep another listed building on the site but I'm baffled why anybody would consider the Beco building worthy of retention."
The building is in Govan MSP Gordon Jackson's constituency and he was concerned about the future of the regeneration attempt.
He said: "This is a very important development and every effort must be made with the developers to ensure it goes ahead.
Ms Ferguson made her decision to back the preservation of the building after receiving a Historic Scotland recommendation that it could be accommodated within the development.
As Culture Minister, she speaks for Historic Scotland. She said: "Glasgow is a city that is very proud of its heritage and we have very few of these riverside and river area warehouses left.
"I would hope that this building could add value to the development.
"Historic Scotland have offered to meet the city council and the developer to discuss integration and I'd urge all the parties to meet as soon as possible to take that forward."
Council officials were meeting today to decide their next move.
Timesfile
THE Beco building was built in 1878 for draper Robert Kerr
Kingston Brass Company later took over the building
The description which earned it List-B status described it as a "five-storey, symmetrical ashlar draper's warehouse and showroom"
Tradeston was developed by the Trades House in the 1600s
It was used by ships to store cargo and was one of Glasgow's busiest commercial areas
Dozens of tenement warehouses were build in the area, which formed a grid pattern dating back to the 1800s
The district suffered badly when shipbuilding and associated river and dock industries went into decline
The rebirth of Tradeston was first plotted when Glasgow celebrated its status as European City of Architecture in 1999
Three years later, the Tradeston Development Strategy was unveiled and has since been spearheaded by Alburn Tradeston, a company launched by John and Noel Smyth
John Smyth was brimming with confidence in August when he declared: "This is a prime location. It will hold its value and its appeal."
Publication date 23/02/07
Is the Evening Times More in tune with the developers than it's readers?
Comments on the above article:
Posted by: Matthew, Glasgow on 1:23pm Fri 23 Feb 07
I felt I had to break out the green ink to respond to the issues raised in your article on Tradeston's ongoing redevelopment. I am dismayed at the apparent inability of Glasgow City Council to recognise what is special about this city (ie its legacy of Victorian architecture)in its headlong rush to erect the worst kind of bland corporate tat in our city's most prominent locations. Nowhere else would this be allowewed to happen - Dublin's Temple Bar, for instance, surely shows what can be done with a degree of sensitive redevelopment. I am certainly not against replacing old buildings when they have outlived their useful lives,provided that the legacy we leave is at least equal to that which we destroy. I find myself disappointed by GCC's continuing habit of regarding our built heritage merely as an obstacle to attracting developments, usually of at best questionable architectural, civic and social merit. Surely the wholesale clearances of the past, with their disastrous results, would have taught them something?
I felt I had to break out the green ink to respond to the issues raised in your article on Tradeston's ongoing redevelopment. I am dismayed at the apparent inability of Glasgow City Council to recognise what is special about this city (ie its legacy of Victorian architecture)in its headlong rush to erect the worst kind of bland corporate tat in our city's most prominent locations. Nowhere else would this be allowewed to happen - Dublin's Temple Bar, for instance, surely shows what can be done with a degree of sensitive redevelopment. I am certainly not against replacing old buildings when they have outlived their useful lives,provided that the legacy we leave is at least equal to that which we destroy. I find myself disappointed by GCC's continuing habit of regarding our built heritage merely as an obstacle to attracting developments, usually of at best questionable architectural, civic and social merit. Surely the wholesale clearances of the past, with their disastrous results, would have taught them something?
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: archie tect, glasgow on 3:47pm Fri 23 Feb 07
Well said Matthew. The new build that has been allowed along the Broomielaw for example is just awful to look at and lacks any real originality or style. I also shudder to think what these huge blocks will look like once the Glasgow weather has done its job over the next ten years or so.
Well said Matthew. The new build that has been allowed along the Broomielaw for example is just awful to look at and lacks any real originality or style. I also shudder to think what these huge blocks will look like once the Glasgow weather has done its job over the next ten years or so.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Anthony Shields on 4:02pm Fri 23 Feb 07
Typical Glasgow City Council - desperate to destroy all reminders of the City's wondeful past to make us ignore the disasters of the present. Has the Council ever done anything good? Think of the vast housing schemes, the needless destruction of Charing Cross, the Carthage-like clearing of Govan, Springburn, Calton, Bridgeton, destroying communities and creating the social conditions which have led to the shortest life expectancies in, is it the World?
Typical Glasgow City Council - desperate to destroy all reminders of the City's wondeful past to make us ignore the disasters of the present. Has the Council ever done anything good? Think of the vast housing schemes, the needless destruction of Charing Cross, the Carthage-like clearing of Govan, Springburn, Calton, Bridgeton, destroying communities and creating the social conditions which have led to the shortest life expectancies in, is it the World?
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Ali, Glasgow on 4:17pm Fri 23 Feb 07
As a law student currently taking planning law, this is a wonderful example of the issues we are currently discussing. All too often people site economic factors like the jobs such redevelopment will create. But what type of jobs? Usually its jobs that pay minimum wage, have a high turnover rate and really don't do terribly much to stimulate the economy. Its an argument used time and again by builders with an economic incentive to bully councils into development projects. As for the new buildings, will it turn into another one of those monsters that can be found right in front of the Sheriff's Court? Ugly, huge and full with the less desirable of Glasgow's population who will wreck it within 5 years? Glasgow seems like a giant building site at the moment, on the southside alone there are several sites going up in Polmadies near the clyde, several bldg sites around Eglinton Toll/Pollockshaws road etc. But who are the people that will fill the housing? Is Glasgow's population increasing? Are more businesses setting up in Glasgow bringing more workers? At least in Victorian times it was quality as well as quantity. Look at any new build and you'll find the list of 'faults' to be about 9 pages long. Keep the quality lose the quantity.
As a law student currently taking planning law, this is a wonderful example of the issues we are currently discussing. All too often people site economic factors like the jobs such redevelopment will create. But what type of jobs? Usually its jobs that pay minimum wage, have a high turnover rate and really don't do terribly much to stimulate the economy. Its an argument used time and again by builders with an economic incentive to bully councils into development projects.
As for the new buildings, will it turn into another one of those monsters that can be found right in front of the Sheriff's Court? Ugly, huge and full with the less desirable of Glasgow's population who will wreck it within 5 years? Glasgow seems like a giant building site at the moment, on the southside alone there are several sites going up in Polmadies near the clyde, several bldg sites around Eglinton Toll/Pollockshaws road etc. But who are the people that will fill the housing? Is Glasgow's population increasing? Are more businesses setting up in Glasgow bringing more workers?
At least in Victorian times it was quality as well as quantity. Look at any new build and you'll find the list of 'faults' to be about 9 pages long. Keep the quality lose the quantity.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: milton on 4:40pm Fri 23 Feb 07
I have to agree with the points above. That building, while not the most impressive of its age, is far from an eyesore. Are we to assume the the building/s that replace it will be looked upon by future generations as 'worth-saving' examples of their kind?? Of course not - they're to be the same glass and concrete, with plastic panelling crap, that we see all to often now. I'm all for the redevelopment of tradeston, but we should integrate the new build with the old, rather than just sweep it aside. The council have only themselves to blame here. For too long in Glasgow we've suffered as our inept leaders bend over to developers and allow the destruction of the historic fabric of the city. I'll bet 50 quid that this building 'accidentally goes on fire' at some point in the next year.
I have to agree with the points above. That building, while not the most impressive of its age, is far from an eyesore. Are we to assume the the building/s that replace it will be looked upon by future generations as 'worth-saving' examples of their kind??
Of course not - they're to be the same glass and concrete, with plastic panelling crap, that we see all to often now.
I'm all for the redevelopment of tradeston, but we should integrate the new build with the old, rather than just sweep it aside. The council have only themselves to blame here. For too long in Glasgow we've suffered as our inept leaders bend over to developers and allow the destruction of the historic fabric of the city.
I'll bet 50 quid that this building 'accidentally goes on fire' at some point in the next year.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Doreen, Glasgow on 5:10pm Fri 23 Feb 07
I agree with the previous posts. To answer Matthew's question as to whether the Council have learned anything from the wholesale clearances of the past - the short answer is NO. As for the City Chambers source who thinks the building is a "monstrosity" and is "gob-smacked by Historic Scotland's decision" - I know whose opinion I would value.
I agree with the previous posts. To answer Matthew's question as to whether the Council have learned anything from the wholesale clearances of the past - the short answer is NO.
As for the City Chambers source who thinks the building is a "monstrosity" and is "gob-smacked by Historic Scotland's decision" - I know whose opinion I would value.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Alastair, Glasgow on 5:35pm Fri 23 Feb 07
I completely agree with the comments said above, and I would also like to see the Evening Times take a stronger stance against this sort of vandalism to Glasgow's heritage. Instead of the headline reading "[italic]Eyesore hits £300m plan for Clydeside[/italic] ", I would have written [italic]"B-listed building under threat from Tradeston developer"[/italic]
I completely agree with the comments said above, and I would also like to see the Evening Times take a stronger stance against this sort of vandalism to Glasgow's heritage.
Instead of the headline reading "Eyesore hits £300m plan for Clydeside ", I would have written "B-listed building under threat from Tradeston developer"
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Bob Torrance, Hamilton on 5:37pm Fri 23 Feb 07
This say's it all. When did Glasgow ever have a sense of Quality planning? Where is the evidence of it to be seen today? Let Scottish Heritage win this one and let the planners and money grabbing builders and developers modify their plans, to accomodate a bit of old Glasgow. Glasgow City Council have a lot to learn from their counterparts in the East, although not perfect they are a lot better than the Glasgow overpaid lot, that's for sure. Bob T[bold]bold[/bold] Torrance
This say's it all. When did Glasgow ever have a sense of Quality planning?
Where is the evidence of it to be seen today?
Let Scottish Heritage win this one and let the planners and money grabbing builders and developers modify their plans, to accomodate a bit of old Glasgow.
Glasgow City Council have a lot to learn from their counterparts in the East, although not perfect they are a lot better than the Glasgow overpaid lot, that's for sure.
Bob T Torrance
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: A Watson, Glasgow on 5:48pm Fri 23 Feb 07
I don't see why the Beco building cannot be incorporated into the development? Haven't we learned anything from the wide scale destruction of our cultural heritage during the 60's?? The Beco building has been in Tradeston for 129 years. Along comes a flash in the pan developer who wants to make a quick buck by throwing up pre-fab 30 year shelf-life buildings comes along and our wise council leader is only too happy to oblige. I'm all for investment in our city, but not at the expense of our heritage. This comes just weeks after the demolition of Partick Central ticket office. How many more beautiful buildings will we loose? If this John Smyth is serious about phase 2 then he'll find a way to sympathetically incorporate the Beco building. He's a developer, not a schoolchild. Well done to Patricia Ferguson and Historic Scotland for protecting our heritage!
I don't see why the Beco building cannot be incorporated into the development?
Haven't we learned anything from the wide scale destruction of our cultural heritage during the 60's?? The Beco building has been in Tradeston for 129 years.
Along comes a flash in the pan developer who wants to make a quick buck by throwing up pre-fab 30 year shelf-life buildings comes along and our wise council leader is only too happy to oblige.
I'm all for investment in our city, but not at the expense of our heritage. This comes just weeks after the demolition of Partick Central ticket office. How many more beautiful buildings will we loose?
If this John Smyth is serious about phase 2 then he'll find a way to sympathetically incorporate the Beco building. He's a developer, not a schoolchild.
Well done to Patricia Ferguson and Historic Scotland for protecting our heritage!
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Craig, Glasgow on 6:02pm Fri 23 Feb 07
Had anyone who responded to this article actually heard of the Beco building before all this? Why is it suddenly the be all and end all of Glasgow history? Can they think of a conceivable use for it, or would they rather it just stand there in its structurally unsound way until it collapses of old age? Be realistic here - Tradeston, derelict as it is and being right next to the city centre, is screaming out for development, and I think it would be insane to let the Beco building stand in the way.
Had anyone who responded to this article actually heard of the Beco building before all this? Why is it suddenly the be all and end all of Glasgow history? Can they think of a conceivable use for it, or would they rather it just stand there in its structurally unsound way until it collapses of old age? Be realistic here - Tradeston, derelict as it is and being right next to the city centre, is screaming out for development, and I think it would be insane to let the Beco building stand in the way.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: david charles, south side on 6:33pm Fri 23 Feb 07
get a grip Craig, this is a beautiful building spoiled only by the blue shopfront. I can only assume you have never seen it yourself ! I pass it every day and prefer it to the ugly new builds thrown up next to the old co op buildings that have recently been refurbished and look fantastic. I have passed the beco building nearly every day for 25 years and its one of my favourite buildings in the city. A Watson is right. Glasgow was ruined in the 60s by planners. Lets not repeat the mistakes that saw a motorway cut through the heart of glasgow. maybe they should have knocked down the scotland street school while they were at it!!
get a grip Craig,
this is a beautiful building spoiled only by the blue shopfront.
I can only assume you have never seen it yourself !
I pass it every day and prefer it to the ugly new builds thrown up next to the old co op buildings that have recently been refurbished and look fantastic.
I have passed the beco building nearly every day for 25 years and its one of my favourite buildings in the city.
A Watson is right.
Glasgow was ruined in the 60s by planners.
Lets not repeat the mistakes that saw a motorway cut through the heart of glasgow.
maybe they should have knocked down the scotland street school while they were at it!!
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Reginald and Tamsin, Somewhere posher than where you live on 6:58pm Fri 23 Feb 07
Ksake. It's a tatty auld werrhoose in Tradeston, no' the Taj Mahal. The people enthusing about it are like the "banter" boys out of Chewin the Fat. If you architectural enthewsyasts really really want it, take it down brick by brick and rebuild it in Milngavie.
Ksake. It's a tatty auld werrhoose in Tradeston, no' the Taj Mahal. The people enthusing about it are like the "banter" boys out of Chewin the Fat. If you architectural enthewsyasts really really want it, take it down brick by brick and rebuild it in Milngavie.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Walter Gray, Renfrew on 8:24pm Fri 23 Feb 07
Beco Building. 129 years and still viable. Says a lot about the quality of this building. I suspect that the real reason behind the "need" to demolish it will have more to do with the height of the structure that would replace it, than the structural state of the Beco Building. I hope the developers fail to get their way on this one and that GCC Official's take a good look at themselves and acknowledge that they ought to be doing rather more that they appear to be doing in ensuring that Glasgow retains as many of its' grand Victorian architectural gems as is possible.
Beco Building. 129 years and still viable. Says a lot about the quality of this building. I suspect that the real reason behind the "need" to demolish it will have more to do with the height of the structure that would replace it, than the structural state of the Beco Building.
I hope the developers fail to get their way on this one and that GCC Official's take a good look at themselves and acknowledge that they ought to be doing rather more that they appear to be doing in ensuring that Glasgow retains as many of its' grand Victorian architectural gems as is possible.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: roy alba, 136-410 on 9:35pm Fri 23 Feb 07
Yes , I must agree with much of what has already been said.Glasgow could have had the majesty and grace of Edinburgh were it not for this ridiculous notion that the old must go...and look what that era of development left us.As for the present glut of developments please refer to the "prestigious Glasgow Harbour development"....need I say any more. This city was obviousily once great but it is no longer...and issues of dependence on the state and poverty and apathy need to be overcome...
Yes , I must agree with much of what has already been said.Glasgow could have had the majesty and grace of Edinburgh were it not for this ridiculous notion that the old must go...and look what that era of development left us.As for the present glut of developments please refer to the "prestigious Glasgow Harbour development"....need I say any more.
This city was obviousily once great but it is no longer...and issues of dependence on the state and poverty and apathy need to be overcome...
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 9:35pm Fri 23 Feb 07
Obviously Reginald & Tamsin, are part of that new Glasgow folk and have discussed this intently with Stephen Purcell over some canapés when last they all met. On the other hand they may just be………, well let’s not go there. If this regeneration is soooo good, then it will happen, come what may. Unfortunately the E.T. headline must have been written by Stephen Purcell, or maybe Reginald and Tamsin. Think positive Mr Purcell, if all that money is left slooshing around then some may just end up in Govan where it is really needed. We have all seen the GCC interventions of the past and we wait, and wait a n d w a i t, for the old Goldberg site to be developed, for Constanzo’s Caprese site at the top of Buchanan Street to be developed, for the old Graving Docks in Govan to be developed, for……. If you have nothing better to do take, Reginald and Tamsin along to one of these sites and let them have some much needed banter with the pigeons.
Obviously Reginald & Tamsin, are part of that new Glasgow folk and have discussed this intently with Stephen Purcell over some canapés when last they all met. On the other hand they may just be………, well let’s not go there.
If this regeneration is soooo good, then it will happen, come what may. Unfortunately the E.T. headline must have been written by Stephen Purcell, or maybe Reginald and Tamsin.
Think positive Mr Purcell, if all that money is left slooshing around then some may just end up in Govan where it is really needed. We have all seen the GCC interventions of the past and we wait, and wait a n d w a i t, for the old Goldberg site to be developed, for Constanzo’s Caprese site at the top of Buchanan Street to be developed, for the old Graving Docks in Govan to be developed, for…….
If you have nothing better to do take, Reginald and Tamsin along to one of these sites and let them have some much needed banter with the pigeons.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Ian Johnstone, Glasgow on 9:49pm Fri 23 Feb 07
I hope the above responses indicate to the Evening Times the strength of feeling from the people of Glasgow. Too often we have the headline trumpeting something for our good when invariably there is something else behind it. And too often it is again written by Brian Currie. C’mon ET are you just a banner headline to your big advertisers like the Council and the SPT?
I hope the above responses indicate to the Evening Times the strength of feeling from the people of Glasgow.
Too often we have the headline trumpeting something for our good when invariably there is something else behind it. And too often it is again written by Brian Currie.
C’mon ET are you just a banner headline to your big advertisers like the Council and the SPT?
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: gef, glasgow on 10:39pm Fri 23 Feb 07
any wonder the crooks and clowns of the council start wailing when the chance of a large backhander goes on hold.....[
any wonder the crooks and clowns of the council start wailing when the chance of a large backhander goes on hold.....[
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Samer Bagaeen, Partick on 11:45pm Fri 23 Feb 07
I am not at all surprised by Steven Purcell's lack of respect or appreciation for Glasgow's heritage. Having presided over the demolition of a 111 year old rail building in Partick by Tesco last month (www.stoptesco.info), I'm glad that Historic Scotland has finally stood up to this council and its leader's destruction of Glasgow heritage that has been going on for years now. Mr. Purcell's whining about the Executive's lack of support again is shameful and he's only got himself and his party's leadership of Glasgow to blame.
I am not at all surprised by Steven Purcell's lack of respect or appreciation for Glasgow's heritage. Having presided over the demolition of a 111 year old rail building in Partick by Tesco last month (www.stoptesco.info), I'm glad that Historic Scotland has finally stood up to this council and its leader's destruction of Glasgow heritage that has been going on for years now. Mr. Purcell's whining about the Executive's lack of support again is shameful and he's only got himself and his party's leadership of Glasgow to blame.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Midgey Raker, Glasgow,Scotland. on 5:00am Sat 24 Feb 07
As a born and bred Glaswegian i have to laugh at all the pro and con letters concerning a run down warehouse that the vast majority of us did`nt even know existed until some money grabbing developer DOING IT FOR THE GOOD OF GLASGOW came calling only to be baulked by that other great champion of Glasgow and it`s citizens The Culture Minister Patricia Ferguson,the reallity of Glasgow these days is that the city centre is being taken over by Pound Shops,Gee Gaw stores,Fast Food Outlets and neds.Trongate ,the Southern end of StEnochs Sq ,Jamaica St are a disgrace,The once colourful heart of the city George Square is a souless red monstrosity ,once upon a time shops and businesses would never have dreamed of putting out bulk rubbish during trading hours now the city centre resembles a rubbish dump some days,agressive beggars and so called homeless magazine vendors hassling people outside every major store and transport link, and a city centre that has become almost a no go area at night for LAW ABIDING ,DECENT Glaswegians ,tourists are SCARED to leave their hotel rooms at night such is the state of lighting and policing yet here we have two well paid camps telling the people who ACTUALLY LIVE HERE IN GLASGOW the merits of keeping or removing an old warehouse,keep it up because the only thing worth developing and preserving will be the road to anywhere else,clean,friendly Glasgow is no more... GET REAL THE LOT OF YOU!!
Posted by: robert, glasgow on 10:41am Sat 24 Feb 07
A city chambers 'source' is 'gobsmacked', and says that the Beco building is 'of no worth to Glasgow's heritage'. So Glasgow's heritage is the likes of, in no particular order; the 'riverboat' casino, the BBC 'shoebox' (so eco-friendly they leave the lights on all night before they've even opened it), the Benidorm -on-the-Clyde monstrosities at Glasgow Harbour, Tay House at Charing Cross? Do we never learn? The fact that the Beco building is not the best example of Victorian Glasgow is neither here nor there, but that it is under threat reminds us of countless other planning mistakes, numerous 'unsafe' buildings being pulled down, and convenient fires breaking out just where a developer might want them to. The Evening Times needs to take a different angle on this story; how about 'more ugly buildings for Glasgow- rejoice!'?
A city chambers 'source' is 'gobsmacked', and says that the Beco building is 'of no worth to Glasgow's heritage'. So Glasgow's heritage is the likes of, in no particular order; the 'riverboat' casino, the BBC 'shoebox' (so eco-friendly they leave the lights on all night before they've even opened it), the Benidorm -on-the-Clyde monstrosities at Glasgow Harbour, Tay House at Charing Cross? Do we never learn? The fact that the Beco building is not the best example of Victorian Glasgow is neither here nor there, but that it is under threat reminds us of countless other planning mistakes, numerous 'unsafe' buildings being pulled down, and convenient fires breaking out just where a developer might want them to. The Evening Times needs to take a different angle on this story; how about 'more ugly buildings for Glasgow- rejoice!'?
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Gary, Finnieston on 12:18pm Sat 24 Feb 07
The whole area has had years of council abuse.I remember the Evening Times reporting that a large piece of land to be used for the 'Garden Festival' years ago was sold by the council to a Limited Company consortium of 'property developers' for one penny.When the festival finished,it was sold back to the council.Can't remember the figure (half a million pounds ? two million pounds?) But I do remember the 'Limited Company' directors were Glasgow City Council members. It's probably on fire as we discuss !
The whole area has had years of council abuse.I remember the Evening Times reporting that a large piece of land to be used for the 'Garden Festival' years ago was sold by the council to a Limited Company consortium of 'property developers' for one penny.When the festival finished,it was sold back to the council.Can't remember the figure (half a million pounds ? two million pounds?) But I do remember the 'Limited Company' directors were Glasgow City Council members. It's probably on fire as we discuss !
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: danny murray, connecticut usa on 1:03pm Sat 24 Feb 07
it seems a pity they cant incorporate new buildings with old as has been previously mentioned there was years of abuse along the clydeside with old shipyard areas left to rot .This was probably down to the fact that money was not made available @ the time i remember playing with my mates there in govan area in 60s/70s,what i will say is people of glasgow should be excited @ the developments through out the city its all right saying most jobs being created are minimum wage but remember it was not that long ago there was not one in place & it is also far more than minimum wage in usa so things seem to be headig in right direction.Hopefully a compromise can be reached as stated earlier there is some wonderful architecture in glasgow but redevelopment of clydeside can also be beneficial
it seems a pity they cant incorporate new buildings with old as has been previously mentioned there was years of abuse along the clydeside with old shipyard areas left to rot .This was probably down to the fact that money was not made available @ the time i remember playing with my mates there in govan area in 60s/70s,what i will say is people of glasgow should be excited @ the developments through out the city its all right saying most jobs being created are minimum wage but remember it was not that long ago there was not one in place & it is also far more than minimum wage in usa so things seem to be headig in right direction.Hopefully a compromise can be reached as stated earlier there is some wonderful architecture in glasgow but redevelopment of clydeside can also be beneficial
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: frank quinn, Lenzie on 2:57pm Sat 24 Feb 07
With regard to the Beco building can't it be renovated and upgraded to a standard where it is then converted into "Yuppy" flats where at least they will likely survive longer than the morgage timespan. As above comments say about the widespread destruction of tenements during the 60's nothing was learned, and the final result is tatty buildings which dont last (What about the original Gorbals Scheme). Glasgow has a habit of letting interesting buildings and structures rot away untill the can then be declared unsafe, then destroyed by vandals (or go on fire) Eg Springburn Town Hall, every day sees it becomming more delapidated. Of course Developers only want a quick buck and usually are only concerned about the locality while the are on site. After everything is sold, on its time for them to move on ,washing their hands of everything. Glasgow "planners" let them away with it every time
With regard to the Beco building can't it be renovated and upgraded to a standard where it is then converted into "Yuppy" flats where at least they will likely survive longer than the morgage timespan. As above comments say about the widespread destruction of tenements during the 60's nothing was learned, and the final result is tatty buildings which dont last (What about the original Gorbals Scheme).
Glasgow has a habit of letting interesting buildings and structures rot away untill the can then be declared unsafe, then destroyed by vandals (or go on fire) Eg Springburn Town Hall, every day sees it becomming more delapidated. Of course Developers only want a quick buck and usually are only concerned about the locality while the are on site. After everything is sold, on its time for them to move on ,washing their hands of everything.
Glasgow "planners" let them away with it every time
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Tradesman on 4:09pm Sat 24 Feb 07
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Beco building could be incorporated into the 2nd phase of Smythe's development, however time for a serious reality check. No-one cared less about the fact that the Beco building suffered years of neglect by the previous owners, it's only now that people are up in arms about it. Having walked by the building every day on my way to work for years I can assure you it is not particularly special, and pales into insignificance against some of the other listed warehouses in the area. What did you lot try and do about the neglect of the building in the past? I guess nothing and now suddenly everyone is up in arms about losing it? The regeneration of Tradeston is vitally important to our city, I happen to think it is one of the best locations in the country and could have unrivalled transport links within the next five years or so. So let's just get on with it, I do not believe the Beco building should be allowed to delay the redevelopment of the area further. Tradeston needs this development.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Beco building could be incorporated into the 2nd phase of Smythe's development, however time for a serious reality check. No-one cared less about the fact that the Beco building suffered years of neglect by the previous owners, it's only now that people are up in arms about it. Having walked by the building every day on my way to work for years I can assure you it is not particularly special, and pales into insignificance against some of the other listed warehouses in the area.
What did you lot try and do about the neglect of the building in the past? I guess nothing and now suddenly everyone is up in arms about losing it?
The regeneration of Tradeston is vitally important to our city, I happen to think it is one of the best locations in the country and could have unrivalled transport links within the next five years or so. So let's just get on with it, I do not believe the Beco building should be allowed to delay the redevelopment of the area further. Tradeston needs this development.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: LAURAH, glasgow on 4:49pm Sat 24 Feb 07
Again a blatant disregard to our city by Glasgow City Council. Improving Tradeston does not have to involve destroying it. Buildings like the beco are important links to our past - and remind us of why this city came into being in the first place. Why cant the new development work around this building? I plead with the press to stop upping these poorly thought out plans. We have already lost partick ticket office - please stop the council stripping away our heritage to make room for modern mass produced homes.
Again a blatant disregard to our city by Glasgow City Council. Improving Tradeston does not have to involve destroying it. Buildings like the beco are important links to our past - and remind us of why this city came into being in the first place. Why cant the new development work around this building? I plead with the press to stop upping these poorly thought out plans. We have already lost partick ticket office - please stop the council stripping away our heritage to make room for modern mass produced homes.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Linda Whyte, Kilsyth, Glasgow on 10:52pm Sat 24 Feb 07
As someone born and raised in Glasgow, I totally approve of Patricia Ferguson and Historic Scotland's decision to block the demolition of the Beco building in Kingston Street, particularly after seeing the picture of its proposed replacement - buildings which are reminiscent of hastily constructed hotels in second class Spanish resorts. So much of Glasgow is lost now that it is hardly recognisable. The Beco building may be in a delapidated state at the moment, but with a bit of imagination from a creative architect, this could be a valuable asset to the comunity. Those who believe it should be retained obviously don't think it is in dire danger of falling down, despite Mr Smyth's engineers saying it is not "particularly" structurally sound. Am I a terrible cynic for suspecting that Mr Smyth is less concerned with the regeneration of Glasgow that with his own profits? Apart from Mr Smyth and other wealthy people, who will benefit from his proposed modernisation of this area? Personally I know very few people who could afford to live in these new, lets-all-copy-the-London-Yuppies residences, which are springing up with alarming speed in British cities. I also take exception to your report on the matter. We are invited to comment on the question "Should an old building halt rebirth of the Clyde?" after reading an extremely biased headline on the front page. Hardly a fair poll of public opinion! Please let's keep Glasgow's buildings of character when possible. Other European cities are rightly proud of their heritage, and Glasgow should be no exception to this.
As someone born and raised in Glasgow, I totally approve of Patricia Ferguson and Historic Scotland's decision to block the demolition of the Beco building in Kingston Street, particularly after seeing the picture of its proposed replacement - buildings which are reminiscent of hastily constructed hotels in second class Spanish resorts.
So much of Glasgow is lost now that it is hardly recognisable. The Beco building may be in a delapidated state at the moment, but with a bit of imagination from a creative architect, this could be a valuable asset to the comunity. Those who believe it should be retained obviously don't think it is in dire danger of falling down, despite Mr Smyth's engineers saying it is not "particularly" structurally sound. Am I a terrible cynic for suspecting that Mr Smyth is less concerned with the regeneration of Glasgow that with his own profits?
Apart from Mr Smyth and other wealthy people, who will benefit from his proposed modernisation of this area? Personally I know very few people who could afford to live in these new, lets-all-copy-the-London-Yuppies residences, which are springing up with alarming speed in British cities.
I also take exception to your report on the matter. We are invited to comment on the question "Should an old building halt rebirth of the Clyde?" after reading an extremely biased headline on the front page. Hardly a fair poll of public opinion!
Please let's keep Glasgow's buildings of character when possible. Other European cities are rightly proud of their heritage, and Glasgow should be no exception to this.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Citizen Pain, Glasgow on 11:33pm Sat 24 Feb 07
This truly is rich coming from the paper which criticised the demolition of Partick Station the other week, yet this week they're demanding that an old building be swept away? This is possibly one of the most uncritical, pro-developer pieces I've read for quite some time, there was no comment from anyone who might be in a position to defend the building. Are they really trying to convince us that this massive project will suddenly be rendered financially unviable just because this one building can't be demolished? To me, the whole threat that this might mean the project won't go ahead smacks of a developer throwing a hissy fit, and shame on Glasgow City Council for siding with them on it - if any of us were still in any doubt whatsoever about the council's attitude to our built heritage, this should finally confirm the worst. I can't believe that they really think that a totally new, sterile and, frankly, bland development is preferable to one which incorporates older structures which have a bit of character and history behind them. I'm no architect or structural engineer, but the building looks both solid and easily adaptable to me. They knew a B-listed building was there when they undertook the plans, why did they just presume that they would be allowed to flatten it instead of designing a scheme that incorporated it from the start? Wouldn't be because there's a larger profit to be made in a newbuild, would it, or am I being cynical in thinking that developers might be greedy sods? Good on HS for insisting it stays too, had demolition been permitted, then it really would just pose the question of why bother to list buildings at all?
This truly is rich coming from the paper which criticised the demolition of Partick Station the other week, yet this week they're demanding that an old building be swept away?
This is possibly one of the most uncritical, pro-developer pieces I've read for quite some time, there was no comment from anyone who might be in a position to defend the building. Are they really trying to convince us that this massive project will suddenly be rendered financially unviable just because this one building can't be demolished? To me, the whole threat that this might mean the project won't go ahead smacks of a developer throwing a hissy fit, and shame on Glasgow City Council for siding with them on it - if any of us were still in any doubt whatsoever about the council's attitude to our built heritage, this should finally confirm the worst.
I can't believe that they really think that a totally new, sterile and, frankly, bland development is preferable to one which incorporates older structures which have a bit of character and history behind them. I'm no architect or structural engineer, but the building looks both solid and easily adaptable to me. They knew a B-listed building was there when they undertook the plans, why did they just presume that they would be allowed to flatten it instead of designing a scheme that incorporated it from the start? Wouldn't be because there's a larger profit to be made in a newbuild, would it, or am I being cynical in thinking that developers might be greedy sods?
Good on HS for insisting it stays too, had demolition been permitted, then it really would just pose the question of why bother to list buildings at all?
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: lynz, paisley on 11:42pm Sat 24 Feb 07
i worked in the tradeston area for a few years and used to pass the Beco building several times each day. i always thought it could be put to better use, as it is quite a cool looking building that is only spoiled by neglect and a gaudy cash and carry sign. to echo previous posts, upgrading the area doesnt mean you have to obliterate everything thats already there!! i dont think that everyone in the city has a particular love for the Beco building itself - i think they have just had enough of the constant destruction of the cities heritage, and are pleased that Scottish Heritage have finally taken a stand to protect it. somehow, i dont see these flashy apartments that are being thrown up in no time would provoke a similar reaction in 100 years!!
i worked in the tradeston area for a few years and used to pass the Beco building several times each day. i always thought it could be put to better use, as it is quite a cool looking building that is only spoiled by neglect and a gaudy cash and carry sign. to echo previous posts, upgrading the area doesnt mean you have to obliterate everything thats already there!!
i dont think that everyone in the city has a particular love for the Beco building itself - i think they have just had enough of the constant destruction of the cities heritage, and are pleased that Scottish Heritage have finally taken a stand to protect it. somehow, i dont see these flashy apartments that are being thrown up in no time would provoke a similar reaction in 100 years!!
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Norman Armstrong, glasgow on 10:00pm today A most serious matter regarding the whole Clydeside and Glasgow Harbour development seems to be have overlooked. The council and the Glasgow Harbour company have used money from the European Regional Development Fund. The ERDF requires that environmental and community matters are given the highest priority. Both these conditions have been systematically violated throughout this "regeneration" in the most blatantly obvious ways. There are, therefore, questions to be asked regarding the legality of the council's actions in this matter. Infringing conditions of grant is, for any organisation, a potentially criminal offence, and those responsible could face fines or imprisonment. This is something for the council to bear in mind while continuing to plunder the public purse for private gain. A most serious matter regarding the whole Clydeside and Glasgow Harbour development seems to be have overlooked. The council and the Glasgow Harbour company have used money from the European Regional Development Fund. The ERDF requires that environmental and community matters are given the highest priority.
Both these conditions have been systematically violated throughout this "regeneration" in the most blatantly obvious ways. There are, therefore, questions to be asked regarding the legality of the council's actions in this matter. Infringing conditions of grant is, for any organisation, a potentially criminal offence, and those responsible could face fines or imprisonment. This is something for the council to bear in mind while continuing to plunder the public purse for private gain.