Towers should be restored, not destroyed
Half a century ago it was decided to proceed with the demolition of most of Glasgow's tenement housing on the grounds that tenement was synonymous with slum. Many tenements were, indeed, unfit for habitation, but many more which were capable of restoration were pulled down in the reckless drive for comprehensive redevelopment. Even in the 1980s, Glasgow councillors were attacking those campaigning to save tenement buildings by Alexander "Greek" Thomson as wanting to condemn people to slum housing. Most now agree that a more measured approach to the housing problems of the time would have yielded better results.
Today, Glasgow Housing Association appears to favour exactly the same unilateralist demolition policy with regard to high-rise and multi-storey housing. Granted, many of these tower buildings were ill-constructed and need demolition (such as the incurably damp Hutchie "E" blocks), but many others which are restorable are being recklessly demolished. The rejection of a proposal to convert some of the remaining Gorbals high-rises into eco-towers is one such example. Another is the decision to flatten the Red Road towers.
These towers give Glasgow an iconic modernist landscape of great drama, possibly second only to that of Marseilles in Europe and their demolition would be an act of
vandalism. At a time when most city middle-class housing is being constructed on a high-rise basis, it is ironic that high-rise working-class housing is being obliterated, often against the wishes of residents. Some high-rise blocks, such as the Anniesland tower, are great social successes; luckily, as it is a listed building, it is unlikely that the demolition men will get their hands on it.
Careful consideration should be given to the cheaper alteratives of restoration of high-rise blocks where possible, and demolition where necessary, rather than sending in the bulldozers again with reckless haste, only to regret again at leisure.
Ian R Mitchell,
21 Woodside Terrace, Glasgow.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: BM, Glasgow on 11:19pm Tue 13 May 08
And you are going to move into one?
And you are going to move into one?
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 11:31pm Tue 13 May 08
The irony to my mind is the way in which at the same time as demolishing tower blocks such as the Red Road Flats, not without their problems socially, and in terms of the levels of racial tension,
yet on the other hand, the powers that be, within Glasgows Planning Department are foolhardy enough to allow the monolithic eyesores of Glasgow Harbour Flats along Glasgows Meadowside Quay ( formerly the Granary Buildings.)
What logic is left when such bad judgements, or decisions are made ?
As for Anniesland "Court" (NOT Anniesland tower) as Ian Mitchell calls it, it cannot be compared with tower blocks in various parts of the city, in any way, shape or form.
Unlike the Lincoln Avenue flats of Knightswood which are not without their troubles, with all manner of electrical goods thrown from the balconys, to the great danger of those below, combined with fire hydrants tampered with, affecting neighbours water pressure.
The problems with the residents within such tower blocks is of integration and communication between them. Having such tower blocks, with most residents living such insulated, and isolated lives does not come without its problems.
The question is not whether to demolish or restore such flats ?
The question is what can we do to inegrate and mix residents of such buildings better than at present. Better community facilities, community centres, provision of access to leisure centres, and other such facilities.
Those who live in tower blocks are far from the highest earners, many of whom are no doubt on benefits, unemployed, unable to work through ill health, or asylum seekers - refugees, not allowed to work. With so many social, and financial problems for people within tower blocks - these areas should be addressed firstly.
Hopefully in years to come, the need for such cramped, far from ideal types of accommodation will lessen. But I have my doubts.
The irony to my mind is the way in which at the same time as demolishing tower blocks such as the Red Road Flats, not without their problems socially, and in terms of the levels of racial tension,
yet on the other hand, the powers that be, within Glasgows Planning Department are foolhardy enough to allow the monolithic eyesores of Glasgow Harbour Flats along Glasgows Meadowside Quay ( formerly the Granary Buildings.)
What logic is left when such bad judgements, or decisions are made ?
As for Anniesland "Court" (NOT Anniesland tower) as Ian Mitchell calls it, it cannot be compared with tower blocks in various parts of the city, in any way, shape or form.
Unlike the Lincoln Avenue flats of Knightswood which are not without their troubles, with all manner of electrical goods thrown from the balconys, to the great danger of those below, combined with fire hydrants tampered with, affecting neighbours water pressure.
The problems with the residents within such tower blocks is of integration and communication between them. Having such tower blocks, with most residents living such insulated, and isolated lives does not come without its problems.
The question is not whether to demolish or restore such flats ?
The question is what can we do to inegrate and mix residents of such buildings better than at present. Better community facilities, community centres, provision of access to leisure centres, and other such facilities.
Those who live in tower blocks are far from the highest earners, many of whom are no doubt on benefits, unemployed, unable to work through ill health, or asylum seekers - refugees, not allowed to work. With so many social, and financial problems for people within tower blocks - these areas should be addressed firstly.
Hopefully in years to come, the need for such cramped, far from ideal types of accommodation will lessen. But I have my doubts.
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 12:40am Wed 14 May 08
[quote]These towers give Glasgow an iconic modernist landscape of great drama, possibly second only to that of Marseilles in Europe and their demolition would be an act of vandalism.[/quote]-Ian R Mitchell, 21 Woodside Terrace, Glasgow.
Does Mr Mitchel have a white stick? Tactility is not a good guide to architectural judgment. Marseilles? Dear God! The view of the Red Road flats from, say, Royston Road at Provanmill is, certainly, an urban [quote]landscape of great drama[/quote] but one reminiscent of uptown Brno or Lodz, suburban E. Berlin or Moscow or a hundred other Warsaw Pact postwar architectural disasters.
He is, alternatively, a Tory[italic] agent provacateur[/italic] intent in keeping before our eyes a memorial of just what a disaster the Labour Party in Glasgow has been for its citizens, with this brain-dead relic of 1950s/60s junkets around eastern Europe. I begin to think, now, that there is some merit in his argument.
These towers give Glasgow an iconic modernist landscape of great drama, possibly second only to that of Marseilles in Europe and their demolition would be an act of vandalism.
-Ian R Mitchell, 21 Woodside Terrace, Glasgow.
Does Mr Mitchel have a white stick? Tactility is not a good guide to architectural judgment. Marseilles? Dear God! The view of the Red Road flats from, say, Royston Road at Provanmill is, certainly, an urban
landscape of great drama
but one reminiscent of uptown Brno or Lodz, suburban E. Berlin or Moscow or a hundred other Warsaw Pact postwar architectural disasters.
He is, alternatively, a Tory
agent provacateur intent in keeping before our eyes a memorial of just what a disaster the Labour Party in Glasgow has been for its citizens, with this brain-dead relic of 1950s/60s junkets around eastern Europe. I begin to think, now, that there is some merit in his argument.
Posted by: Politically-incorrec
t Man, Glasgow on 5:04am Wed 14 May 08
Whenever I return to Glasgow the initial view of the city from the M77 always looks depressing and reminds me of some drab Soviet metropolis. The sooner the towers and blocks of flats go the better.
Whenever I return to Glasgow the initial view of the city from the M77 always looks depressing and reminds me of some drab Soviet metropolis. The sooner the towers and blocks of flats go the better.
Posted by: Brizerwatt, Singapore on 6:27am Wed 14 May 08
Singapore is full of high rise apartment blocks for working class people , they dont seem any better built than most of those in Glasgow but they are better PLANNED and people are happy to live in them. They have shops below and eating areas , basketball courts , football pitches , well kept communal garden, covered areas where people can congrigate and they are mostly built beside the MRT train system for good tranport access to all area of the city.
If the present flats in Glasgow can be developed in this way then keep them if not pull them down and rebuild in the succesfull tenement style that works so weel where it hasnt been destroyed.
Singapore is full of high rise apartment blocks for working class people , they dont seem any better built than most of those in Glasgow but they are better PLANNED and people are happy to live in them. They have shops below and eating areas , basketball courts , football pitches , well kept communal garden, covered areas where people can congrigate and they are mostly built beside the MRT train system for good tranport access to all area of the city.
If the present flats in Glasgow can be developed in this way then keep them if not pull them down and rebuild in the succesfull tenement style that works so weel where it hasnt been destroyed.
Posted by: Paul, Paisley on 7:35am Wed 14 May 08
[quote][bold]BM[/bold] wrote:
And you are going to move into one?[/quote] Touche!
BM wrote:
And you are going to move into one?
Touche!
Posted by: chris walker, west kilbride on 9:53am Wed 14 May 08
Recently, because of a letter of mine in the Herald, I resumed contact with a friend called Jim Johnston. Forty years ago along with Raymond Young, Jim saved much of what is left of Glasgow's fine tenemental heritage, their combined afforts stopping the philistines in their stupid demolition programme - that was the point of my letter. Even at that, one of Greek Thomson's splendid exemplars, Walmsley Crescent in Paisley Road West, has a 60's shopping strip in front of it, neatly concealing it from public view. Terrific! Thus that part of Mr Mitchell's letter reminding us of the crass behaviour of politicians, I endorse.
Corbusier's high-rise philosophy causes me much more trouble - aesthetically and sociologically - especially when it comes to its Glasgow applications. I remember when Glasgow Corporation used to boast via newspaper adverts that the city built the "highest" high-rise in Britain. It did, it did. Just as it built an urban motorway through its very heart. I have also been to Singapore and can confirm Brizerwatts' observations. Corbusier is doubtful conceptually - without the concomitant elements at ground level identified by Brizewatts I consider Corbusier an unmitigated disaster, architecturally and socially.
Kelvin Court is hardly typical, its building standards and middle class occupiers, and the relative absence of weans, making all the difference in the world. There aren't too many alsatians, if any, in Kelvin Court, I'd guess, whereas they are a "sine qua non" in much of Glasgow, as common as washing machines and Hi-Fis which they often stop being purloined. I'm afraid Glasgow embodies the failures of Corbusier or the faux-Corbusier on offer.
I'm not a fan of the GHA: au contraire, but just for once their policy on demolition is at least in general terms, and with respect to high flats, correct.
Recently, because of a letter of mine in the Herald, I resumed contact with a friend called Jim Johnston. Forty years ago along with Raymond Young, Jim saved much of what is left of Glasgow's fine tenemental heritage, their combined afforts stopping the philistines in their stupid demolition programme - that was the point of my letter. Even at that, one of Greek Thomson's splendid exemplars, Walmsley Crescent in Paisley Road West, has a 60's shopping strip in front of it, neatly concealing it from public view. Terrific! Thus that part of Mr Mitchell's letter reminding us of the crass behaviour of politicians, I endorse.
Corbusier's high-rise philosophy causes me much more trouble - aesthetically and sociologically - especially when it comes to its Glasgow applications. I remember when Glasgow Corporation used to boast via newspaper adverts that the city built the "highest" high-rise in Britain. It did, it did. Just as it built an urban motorway through its very heart. I have also been to Singapore and can confirm Brizerwatts' observations. Corbusier is doubtful conceptually - without the concomitant elements at ground level identified by Brizewatts I consider Corbusier an unmitigated disaster, architecturally and socially.
Kelvin Court is hardly typical, its building standards and middle class occupiers, and the relative absence of weans, making all the difference in the world. There aren't too many alsatians, if any, in Kelvin Court, I'd guess, whereas they are a "sine qua non" in much of Glasgow, as common as washing machines and Hi-Fis which they often stop being purloined. I'm afraid Glasgow embodies the failures of Corbusier or the faux-Corbusier on offer.
I'm not a fan of the GHA: au contraire, but just for once their policy on demolition is at least in general terms, and with respect to high flats, correct.
Posted by: Bill Irvine, West Lothian on 10:04am Wed 14 May 08
One of these towers sounds like the best place to live.
It would be the only location where the tower was not spoiling the view.
One of these towers sounds like the best place to live.
It would be the only location where the tower was not spoiling the view.
Posted by: Oskar Matzerath, Glasgow on 10:43am Wed 14 May 08
You have to laugh - someone living in Woodside Terrace claiming that the 'Ridroad' should be restored. Restored to what exactly? I spent the first few years of my life in a Red Road flat and can never remember a time when those who stayed there had anything other than hatred for the place. Housing families with five kids thirty floors up is simply ridiculous. In the 70s Red Road was called Valium Valley as so many folk were prescribed the stuff in a broad attempt to combat the many social problems living there caused.
The Edinburgh modernist architect Sir Basil Spence was once horrified to find that those inhabiting his Hutchesontown development had the crass temerity to decorate their windows with gaudy net curtains in shocking colours. That says more about modernist social housing architects than I possibly ever could.
You have to laugh - someone living in Woodside Terrace claiming that the 'Ridroad' should be restored. Restored to what exactly? I spent the first few years of my life in a Red Road flat and can never remember a time when those who stayed there had anything other than hatred for the place. Housing families with five kids thirty floors up is simply ridiculous. In the 70s Red Road was called Valium Valley as so many folk were prescribed the stuff in a broad attempt to combat the many social problems living there caused.
The Edinburgh modernist architect Sir Basil Spence was once horrified to find that those inhabiting his Hutchesontown development had the crass temerity to decorate their windows with gaudy net curtains in shocking colours. That says more about modernist social housing architects than I possibly ever could.
Posted by: pinkscott, glasgow on 2:14pm Wed 14 May 08
Tower block living is not intrinsically more isolated than tenement living. Indeed, having lived in each, I found living in a high-rise in the Gorbals more sociable as I had to wait for, and share, the lift with my neighbours. Before the chorus of 'Aye, if the lifts work'... Aye, the lifts [italic]did[/italic] work for the 6 years I lived in the building.
The ongoing 'blame the bricks' mentality in Glasgow is extremely wasteful both in terms of communities and resources. It's the poverty/inequality that needs to be addressed first.
Tower block living is not intrinsically more isolated than tenement living. Indeed, having lived in each, I found living in a high-rise in the Gorbals more sociable as I had to wait for, and share, the lift with my neighbours. Before the chorus of 'Aye, if the lifts work'... Aye, the lifts
did work for the 6 years I lived in the building.
The ongoing 'blame the bricks' mentality in Glasgow is extremely wasteful both in terms of communities and resources. It's the poverty/inequality that needs to be addressed first.
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 2:14pm Wed 14 May 08
Those calling for restoration of high flats, what that means, should open their eyes and their minds to consideration of the long term management and maintenance costs of these non-traditional buildings. Yes, of course they could be retained but only if those living in them are prepared to pay for their maintenance. GHA will not have taken a simplistic aesthetic viewpoint; rather they will have considered the condition of the structure, the fabric and what it would take to sustain the buildings against what they could realistically charge in rent / against which they could borrow to pay for work that would secure a long term future for the property and the residents. If they want to stay of course!
Finally, I assume that those calling for 'restoration' actually mean complete refurbishment and modernisation to providse comfortable, easily heated, (and therefore cheaper to heat) homes.
Those calling for restoration of high flats, what that means, should open their eyes and their minds to consideration of the long term management and maintenance costs of these non-traditional buildings. Yes, of course they could be retained but only if those living in them are prepared to pay for their maintenance. GHA will not have taken a simplistic aesthetic viewpoint; rather they will have considered the condition of the structure, the fabric and what it would take to sustain the buildings against what they could realistically charge in rent / against which they could borrow to pay for work that would secure a long term future for the property and the residents. If they want to stay of course!
Finally, I assume that those calling for 'restoration' actually mean complete refurbishment and modernisation to providse comfortable, easily heated, (and therefore cheaper to heat) homes.
Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 2:16pm Wed 14 May 08
Those calling for restoration of high flats, what that means, should open their eyes and their minds to consideration of the long term management and maintenance costs of these non-traditional buildings. Yes, of course they could be retained but only if those living in them are prepared to pay for their maintenance. GHA will not have taken a simplistic aesthetic viewpoint; rather they will have considered the condition of the structure, the fabric and what it would take to sustain the buildings against what they could realistically charge in rent / against which they could borrow to pay for work that would secure a long term future for the property and the residents. If they want to stay of course!
Finally, I assume that those calling for 'restoration' actually mean complete refurbishment and modernisation to providse comfortable, easily heated, (and therefore cheaper to heat) homes.
Those calling for restoration of high flats, what that means, should open their eyes and their minds to consideration of the long term management and maintenance costs of these non-traditional buildings. Yes, of course they could be retained but only if those living in them are prepared to pay for their maintenance. GHA will not have taken a simplistic aesthetic viewpoint; rather they will have considered the condition of the structure, the fabric and what it would take to sustain the buildings against what they could realistically charge in rent / against which they could borrow to pay for work that would secure a long term future for the property and the residents. If they want to stay of course!
Finally, I assume that those calling for 'restoration' actually mean complete refurbishment and modernisation to providse comfortable, easily heated, (and therefore cheaper to heat) homes.
Posted by: Doug Blaney, Glasgow on 6:53pm Thu 15 May 08
High flats, low flats in housing schemes like Easterhouse or Drumchapel, it does not matter what you build, there will always be noisy neighbours intent on making life hell for everybody.
It is not always the houses that are a problem, it is some of the people who live in them. There are millions of people all over the world live peacefully in high rise flats and are happy and content to do so. Sort the rowdy neighbours and you get a good community who will look after their homes no matter where they are.
High flats, low flats in housing schemes like Easterhouse or Drumchapel, it does not matter what you build, there will always be noisy neighbours intent on making life hell for everybody.
It is not always the houses that are a problem, it is some of the people who live in them. There are millions of people all over the world live peacefully in high rise flats and are happy and content to do so. Sort the rowdy neighbours and you get a good community who will look after their homes no matter where they are.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 10:09pm Fri 16 May 08
Doug,
I agree with you up to a point, however when it comes to the situation of some newer high rise, or "out of scale" ( in my opinion) developments, the problem of the people within them isn't the only issue.
Glasgow Harbour Development, and the flats along the length of the Clyde, are all very well for those prepared to pay the ludicrous prices for them, considering the Clyde is hardly the most scenic, or picturesque rivers to live on the banks of.
Closing off the Clyde to other dwellers, cyclists, walkers and the like is a sad reflection on the commercialisation and profiteering being allowed by Glasgows inept planning department.
Perhaps we need to see a restriction on the height of newer developments if greed is the key motivation to build "out of scale" at the expense of other neigbours view of the sky, and natural sunlight.
People forget the way in which some new flats can be a blight and eyesore on the horizon, and if their neighbours happen to become as troublesome as certain other flats, through drug deals (etc) then their over-inflated prices are not exactly worth the money afterall - are they ?
Just worth remembering that such high rise monstrosities aren't to everyonese taste - but how we build for the future 40 years must be balanced far more carefully - as clearly the lifespan of such high rise tower blocks was never fully considered , nor appreciated in the 1960's.
Doug,
I agree with you up to a point, however when it comes to the situation of some newer high rise, or "out of scale" ( in my opinion) developments, the problem of the people within them isn't the only issue.
Glasgow Harbour Development, and the flats along the length of the Clyde, are all very well for those prepared to pay the ludicrous prices for them, considering the Clyde is hardly the most scenic, or picturesque rivers to live on the banks of.
Closing off the Clyde to other dwellers, cyclists, walkers and the like is a sad reflection on the commercialisation and profiteering being allowed by Glasgows inept planning department.
Perhaps we need to see a restriction on the height of newer developments if greed is the key motivation to build "out of scale" at the expense of other neigbours view of the sky, and natural sunlight.
People forget the way in which some new flats can be a blight and eyesore on the horizon, and if their neighbours happen to become as troublesome as certain other flats, through drug deals (etc) then their over-inflated prices are not exactly worth the money afterall - are they ?
Just worth remembering that such high rise monstrosities aren't to everyonese taste - but how we build for the future 40 years must be balanced far more carefully - as clearly the lifespan of such high rise tower blocks was never fully considered , nor appreciated in the 1960's.
Features
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (14)
