The latest example of the anywhere factor – a particularly egregious example – is the plan for the site on Sauchiehall Street down the hill from the Glasgow School of Art. Until a few months ago, it was where the old ABC cinema was but there was a fire you’ll remember – always a fire – and there’s been discussion ever since about what should go up in its place. This week we got a look at what it might be. Prepare yourselves.
From the front, it’s very like the buildings I saw in Bath Street and Bolton: an anywhere building built with anywhere steel and anywhere bricks. The plan is for 356 student flats with food halls and cafes underneath and the developers, Vita, say it’ll “generate economic benefits, re-energise Sauchiehall Street and contribute to the city’s Golden Z ambitions”. But we know what’s going on here really: cheapo student flats allow for maximum profit in a way better quality accommodation wouldn’t, partly because of rent controls, and so that’s what we get: cheapo student flats.
But here’s where the anywhere factor kicks in. Out on the edges of the city, or in a place where there are lots of other modern buildings, the flats proposed for Sauchiehall Street might be OK – bland but OK. But the building isn’t just anywhere – it’s slap bang in front of Charles Rennie Mackintosh’s Glasgow School of Art, or what’s left of it after the fire and the second fire (always a fire). If there’s any site that needs careful consideration for the context, heritage and history, then this is it.
Read more
Mack rebuild ‘at risk’ from ABC warns Glasgow Art School | The Herald
No more Edinburgh Book Festival for me – where did it all go wrong?
A Scottish legend says cancel culture is over. Yeah right
A Pride hate crime on Arran? No, just a sign of where we are now
The developers appear to think the space they’ve designed behind the flats and in front of the School of Art will mitigate the new building’s size and effect and have created pictures of people strolling around it on a sunny day. Firstly, sunny day: hah. Secondly, in a letter in The Herald today, the architect Alan Dunlop says he’s looked at the images and believes you might get sunlight into such a space but only in high summer and only if you removed four or five of the storeys from the front of the buildings. It means, in his view, that the images of the sunlit public space are misleading.
The fact that Glasgow planners have recommended the plans for approval is also an indication the council still isn’t getting the balance right between protecting and enhancing the built heritage and trying to find an economic model for the city centre. Developers are building many flats to accommodate thousands of students – and to some extent that’s fair enough, the number of students in Glasgow has increased and there’s a shortage of accommodation. But speak to anyone in academia and they’ll tell you the university model built on lots of international students paying big fat fees is under strain and in some cases, collapsing. So what happens when the student numbers start to drop again? More specifically, what happens to buildings such as the student flats proposed for down the hill from the Art School?
Penny Macbeth, the director of the school, has acknowledged in her response to the proposal that there will be some economic benefits but she also points out that economic benefits have to be balanced against the longer-term impacts. She says the gap site is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform an important part of the city. She also says the reconstruction of Mackintosh’s masterpiece as a working art school will bring economic, social, cultural and regeneration benefits to the city. But the second depends on the first: the benefits depend on the transformation being sensitive, balanced, proportionate and part of a wider coherent plan for a conservation area and I see no signs of any of it I’m afraid.
As Professor Macbeth says, the opportunity is there. You have a site just below the Art School that has Garnethill on one side and Blythswood, Glasgow’s New Town, on the other and it could be a very elegant place indeed. One option would be to create a public square but even if that was considered unviable, you could certainly revise the flats proposal to ensure it had less of a detrimental impact. Professor Macbeth says she believes a solution could be found which delivers financial viability for the developers while mitigating the impact on the Art School and the city’s built heritage.
So with that in mind, here are a few factors for councillors to consider before they take the final decision tomorrow. Firstly, how important are the student flats long-term? The 356 students (probably more) living in the 356 student flats won’t pay any council tax; the student bubble is also going to burst at some point soon, so what happens then? The short-term benefits also have to be balanced against the longer-term legacy: creating a public space that enhances the city’s built heritage – including its most famous building. And remember the anywhere factor: this is an important part of Glasgow so the buildings that go up there should feel like Glasgow, and make Glasgow better.
We know this is how lots of influential people see it: over 130 individuals and organisations have objected to the plans including Historic Environment Scotland, The Mackintosh Society and many others, and they’re all saying pretty much the same thing: these plans are too big, they have little architectural merit, and they will have an adverse effect on a conservation area and the appreciation and setting of the masterwork of an architectural mastermind. I think that’s more than enough to say: stop.
But I fear that when the decision is taken, the council will say: go. Where’s the bigger plan though? I walked round Blythswood recently with the historian Graeme Smith who’s written a fine book about the area, and one of the points he made was that there’s been no clear leadership on the place and no wider strategy. If such a strategy existed – a strategy to create a fine public space that showcases the Art School and reflects Glasgow’s heritage, a place where people want to linger – we could decide, case by case, whether any new buildings fit with the plan. Perhaps a revised version of the Sauchiehall Street flats would fit. But as it stands, the current plan raises only one important question: why are we building an anywhere building in somewhere that really matters?
