Architecture+Design Scotland

Show navigation

Introduction
This report relates to the proposed masterplan for a site on Beith Street in Glasgow, presented at an A+DS Design Review meeting held on 23rd August 2011 in Bakehouse Close, Edinburgh.

A+DS has reviewed proposals for the site on a number of occasions previously, albeit by another Project Team and a different combination of uses. A scheme by Tesco Stores Ltd for a large retail food store and student housing was initially seen by a Design Review panel in February 2006, then again in September 2006, and also at an internal review in February 2007. This scheme was granted full planning consent in November 2008, however it has not been taken further and Tesco Stores Ltd now propose to develop an alternative site close by.

A+DS Views

1 General
1.1 We thank the Project Team for presenting the masterplan to the Design Review panel. The proposals are the subject of a current application for Planning Permission in Principle (PPP), and A+DS welcome the opportunity to make comment at this stage. The site location is such that its development has the potential to make positive contributions to both the immediate and wider area, and we note, as outlined in the Design Statement provided, that the purpose of the PPP application is to provide a framework for the long term development of the site with the flexibility to be realised in phases. We offer the following advice for the Project Team to consider now and as the project develops.

2 Urban Design
2.1 Site Layout
We consider that the diagrams presented by the Project Team as part of their site analysis have potential in terms of a rational approach to the layout and ordering of the site. However, the subsequent masterplan, which forms the basis of the PPP application, appears to have diluted these early concepts particularly in terms of connection and design philosophy. The current scheme feels largely like a series of tall buildings surrounded by unplanned open spaces and we encourage the Project Team to explore how the masterplan could refer more closely to the existing urban environment in this part of the city. In particular, the proposed buildings relationship with Beith St to the north and the River Kelvin to the south should be studied further. Such a study should test the proposals in cross section and contextual elevations, and not only plan form and perspective as presented at the meeting.

2.2 Building Typologies
We have concerns over the height of the buildings shown in the perspectives presented. The height of the existing buildings immediately surrounding the site varies dramatically and we note the proposed height of the development would exceed these. We suggest that the Project Team explore the possibility of creating lower, perhaps open ‘U’ or ‘L’ shaped blocks, that are aligned on Beith St, opening out to the riverfront, and which could:

- Maintain the required development density at a slightly lower scale.
- Challenge the existing highway condition of Beith St and reintroduce it as a new urban street that is a place for people rather than vehicles (with reference to the Scottish Government’s Policy on Designing Streets).
- Define the landscape spaces between the building forms as either: open public spaces that link through to the river walkway; or enclosed south facing residents’ gardens.
- Provide an opportunity for some active uses along Beith St, in keeping with the mixed-use description of the proposals and the traditional character of surrounding streets like Dumbarton Road.

We further question the proposed buildings types with regard to the resultant gable end elevations to both Beith St and the river. In the perspectives presented these gables appear to have an uneasy relationship with the street. Whilst we acknowledge that there is a considerable level change between the street and existing site datum we recommend that the buildings forms should interact with the street edge and recommend that the Project Team reconsider the proposals with a view to a more cohesive street elevation.

2.3 Car Parking
The fundamental decision to locate all of the residents’ car parking below ground is very much welcomed, and allows a way of mediating the level change across the site. We note the benefits that this offers in terms of the opportunities to create landscaped spaces adjacent to the proposed buildings as well as limiting the amount of vehicles moving around in public spaces at ground level. The proposed access arrangement to the car parking areas from the riverfront via a single route could, given the volume of vehicles, be problematic in terms of access and egress at peak times of the day, and we note that this could potentially have a negative effect on the quality of the proposed riverside walkway and how people might use it. We encourage the Project Team to consider in section ways in which the car access, the ventilation of the underground spaces, and the landscape details along the river edge will support the ambition they have for the space.

3 Landscape Design
3.1 Public/Private Space
We acknowledge the intention to create both public and private landscape decks as part of the masterplan; however, the current proposals lack a landscape strategy that describes the quality of such spaces. A masterplan, particularly one of this scale, will benefit from the strategic input of a Landscape Architect and we advise the Project Team to address this at this stage.

Whilst the proposals would permit some connectivity between Beith St and the riverfront, the current transition from the landscape decks down to the walkway is via a stepped route over a single level change adjacent to the river walkway. Whilst conscious of the Project Team’s brief regards accommodation of car parking numbers, we feel that the current proposals are restrictive in terms of permeability and encouragement of progression through the site, and we suggest further investigation to find a solution which would resolve the level difference whilst achieving a more public spirited river edge space. A terraced solution, for example, would also mitigate long blank facades along the river walkway as indicated in the indicative perspectives provided.

As advised by the Project Team at the meeting, we welcome their reference to the Barrier Park East development in London, particularly the character and design of the waterside park, and suggest that they consider the landscape designs further with this in mind.

3.2 Riverside Walkway
We note as advised at the meeting that the riverside walkway proposed as part of the development is intended to form a key part of pedestrian links proposed between the west end of the city and the Glasgow Harbour area, including the recent Riverside Museum development. This is considered to be a very positive element of the scheme, however we understand that some of the required links out with the site boundary do not exist at present and we suggest that the Planning Authority consider the adjoining ownerships and uses such that a firm strategy can be put in place to develop this clearly desirable linkage at an early stage.

The café building proposed within open space at the eastern end of the walkway is another positive element, whilst the area surrounding it awaits design development and animation. We suggest that the optimum café location, however, will be informed by certainty around the formation of the extended links along the river walkway to the Riverside Museum. Moving the building further south towards the river would generate additional interest and activity on the riverside walkway, but is likely to be less successful without a well-used through route being created along the river edge. We therefore encourage the Project Team to consider a site response which can react to the river edge condition and develops out-with their own site influence.

3.3 Pocket Park
The location of the pocket park proposed as part of the masterplan presented has the potential to appear residual, given its isolation and containment by major infrastructure, its distance from the proposed flats and part of the surrounding community who might use it. We have concern that this could result in it being rarely used by the residents, and the potential for it to becoming a target for anti-social behaviour or vandalism. We recommend that the Project Team reconsider the pocket park as an integral part of the public open space proposed within the masterplan, the road edge conditions, and the desire for a positive relationship between public space and surrounding development.

Conclusion
Whilst there are positive aspects of the masterplan – below ground car parking, the new riverside walkway and opportunity for landscaped spaces – we believe that the current proposals require further design development if they are to provide a robust framework for the long term development of the site. We suggest that the proposed buildings’ relationship with Beith Street and the River Kelvin requires to be considered further with regard to both architecture and placemaking. In particular, the arrangement of the proposed blocks should refer more closely to the scale and form of the existing urban environment, with the creation of buildings along Beith Street presenting an opportunity to address its current highway condition and reinvent it as a new urban street. A landscape strategy is also required to further describe the proposals and we recommend that the Project Team consider how the use and character of the proposed landscape spaces might better inform the layout of the masterplan.

Given that the site location is such that its development has the potential to make positive contributions to both the immediate and wider area, A+DS would be pleased to be re-consulted as and when amended proposals are brought forward.