Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 7th January 2009 Change Date

The Steamie

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Planners give second rubber stamp to Caltongate scheme



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 28 August 2008
WORK can finally get under way on the massive £300 million Caltongate scheme after it was given the final go-ahead – again.
The controversial plans – which came back to the planning committee yesterday – went through on the nod as councillors ruled it would be "illogical" to stop the development.

It had to be reconsidered because of a blunder by officials which meant o
bjectors were not given their statutory 14 days to comment on the decision earlier this year to approve the scheme.

They were invited to submit further comments and present any new evidence they believed should be considered.

The forthcoming visit by a Unesco delegation, which will investigate the effect of the scheme on the city's world heritage status was considered the only substantial new development, and local councillor David Beckett urged colleagues to take the opportunity to "correct their mistake" and refuse the application.

He said: "The Caltongate plans should have been refused by this council at the first opportunity.

"The biggest concern is the effect this will have on the city's World Heritage Status, yet I was told at the last meeting on this subject that it was 'scaremongering' to suggest that this development could cost us that," he said. He was backed up by Green councillor Steve Burgess, who said the development should at least be delayed until after the Unesco report – which is not expected to be until late next year.

But planning committee convener Jim Lowrie said the council should stand by its decision.

"If we feel we need modern developments in a gap site we will take the decision," he said. "It would be illogical to stop a development that we have carefully considered."

And he was supported by Councillor Maureen Child, who said it would be "an insult to ourselves" if the committee were to "turn tail and change its mind".

The decision was greeted with dismay by Julie Logan, a member of the Old Town Community Council and a vocal objector.

"I'm not surprised, although I had hoped they might consider it in a bit more detail. We will now be urging ministers to order a full public inquiry," she said.

A spokeswoman for developer Mountgrange welcomed the decision which is now expected to be rubber-stamped by the Scottish Government. "Caltongate offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to significantly improve the fabric and feature of Edinburgh's Old Town."

HAYMARKET PLANS GO THROUGH
THE city council has upheld the approval of a controversial £200 million development at Haymarket featuring a 17-storey hotel.

Councillors previously backed the scheme in June, but new rules required officials to write back to all objectors, inviting them to submit further comments.

Objectors said the proposed hotel could put the city's World Heritage Site in jeopardy.

In the proposals the car park at the former Morrison Street goods yard would be replaced by a 192-bedroom, five-star hotel, a neighbouring three-star, 245-bedroom Travelodge, offices, shops and restaurants.







The full article contains 503 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Kate,

Zurich 28/08/2008 12:25:36
There goes the World Heritage status! Neither of these developments has been thought through properly, particulary in regard to the effect on exisiting infrastructure and services.
2

JJH,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 12:35:18
Any wonder we are the most miserable place in the UK with all this #@*! going on.
3

Cappo Del Monte,

28/08/2008 12:41:07
#1
The city does nor=t deserve the honour of World heritage status when the slime in cooncil continue to sell off land to developers and not give a t.oss whats build there
The only reason these places have been given permission is becaiuse the cooncil got heaps of cash for them before and cant afford to get a lower price now is land has to be bought and sold again
4

Ecco Warrier,

Embra 28/08/2008 12:43:11
Correct decision. Cannot believe all these people who prefer the way it was ,Old Garage , badly lit area with all the Jakies and druggies hanging about.And same people complaining about safety of their kids.
If it was stopped it would end up back to the old Edinburgh gap site days. God forbid ,move on and improve area.
5

Statsman,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 13:00:17
4 Ecco Warrier

The concern was about knocking down listed buildings and people's homes. The replacement is cheap and nasty.

Although I am no fan of cheap and nasty, it would be less troubling if the other buildings were left alone and the cheap and nasty new build was kept separate.
6

Boy Wonder,

28/08/2008 13:05:41
Planners 1 - Future Of The City 0
7

Howard Moon,

28/08/2008 13:09:08
Julie Logan = ?
David Beckett = ?
Kate from Zurich = ?

Where's the B?

8

Pop goes the Weasel ,

Gorgie 28/08/2008 13:34:59
Howard Moon - Buttress must be on his holidays.
9

Howard Moon,

28/08/2008 13:47:13
Thanks Pop. But I thought 'he' was a 'she'?
10

Old Town Resident,

edinburgh 28/08/2008 14:03:01

Todays cartoon says it all ...
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/cartoon?articleid=4434636
11

The Geniune Mario Antionette,

28/08/2008 14:22:35
once again, no input from the city's Economic leader, Councillor Tom Buchanan - where is he ?
12

The Geniune Mario Antionette,

28/08/2008 14:23:21
# 11 - he resigned a year ago, but hasn't told anyone
13

Buttress,

28/08/2008 14:33:51
Howard Moon I see is worrying about personalities rather than the issues again.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/MSPs-want-Caltongate-inquiry-.4425712.jp#3170826


There's another piece today here:


http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opinion/Caltongate-39It39s-certainly--a.4434611.jp

and here:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Swinney-refuses-to-enter-row.4433940.jp#3170830

so I expect the bilious abuse from some will soon be added, eh? ;-)



Pictures of the listed buildings to be demolished here:

www.eh8.org.uk

Yes, a great cartoon from Frank Boyle!



14

Kate,

Zurich 28/08/2008 14:35:38
#Ecco Warrior, I don't want it to remain the way it was but new building developments can be in harmony with existing, often protected or listed buildings. The developments here are not in harmony and are not what the locals want...
15

Buttress,

28/08/2008 14:39:21
Yup...
16

Buttress,

28/08/2008 14:39:59
Read today's edition:

http://www.independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/

17

Buttress,

28/08/2008 14:45:32
Good Times piece:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4622345.ece
18

Howard Moon,

28/08/2008 16:06:18
http://business.scotsman.com/mortgageandpropertynews/Capital-property-plans-scaled-back.4353929.jp

Glad you always stick to the issues Buttress, and never get hung up on 'personalities'. What was that, four posts attacking the guy?

To Kate (how's the weather in Switzerland today?), and Cappo, and Stasman, et al - why do you, personally, care about Edinburgh's 'World Heritage Status'? Do you just use it as a string in the bow of your argument (like my mum saying if I bit my fingernails they would fall off) or do you actually derive personal, genuine pride from it? Do you need a body like UNESCO telling you your city is of historical and architectural value?

Anyway,poor Julie Logan. Wonder if she ever posts on this site?

19

Think Tank,

28/08/2008 16:22:19
18 months to visit and compile a report on the Caltongate scheme.

Not hard to see UNESCO are on an extended jolly!

Quangoliferous.

20

Chris42,

Glasgow 28/08/2008 16:29:33
Will the Haymarket high rise building be visible from Princes Street? Great shame if it spoils the wonderful vista.
21

Buttress,

28/08/2008 17:02:48
Clearly Howard Moon raising pertinent issues isn't really your thing. Have you ever actually researched the background to the setting up of World Heritage Sites? Possibly the answer is no?

HS Malcolm Cooper is a public figure and needs to ba accountable.

Yes Julie posts. Maybe you hadn't spotted her.


A jolly? Doubt it, has to visit, talk to people, investigate, receive a report (by Feb) from the goov, then write a report from next year's conference. But of course I am sure Septic knows that. Knows all about the work of UNESCO, international charters and treaties, things like that.


22

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 17:16:55
#14 Kate,Zurich 28/08/2008 14:35:38

"The developments here are not in harmony and are not what the locals want..."

Not quite Kate, I'm a 'local' and like many of my neighbours I am now very much in favour of this development getting the go-ahead. None of us want to see a 'Calton Road Dustbowl' which could easily be the result if the site were left abandonned. The planned buildings are not out of harmony with the new CEC HQ and the Lochend Wynd development built by Barrett Homes which are nearby. Other 'modern' developments are of course at Lochend and Buchanan Courts which are also in close proximity.

The Cannongate Venture building is just too depressing to be allowed to exist and isn't lived in anyway. I should also point out that many of those who have lost or are about to lose their homes have been satisfactorliy re-housed (I happen to know 2 of them personally and know that they are happy with the outcome, I assume that the others will be similarly treated).

As for the toothless tigers from UNESCO, appropriate finger gestures would be my reponse combined with the comment "Mind your own damned business".



23

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 17:32:17
"The biggest concern is the effect this will have on the city's World Heritage Status"

Personally I hope the WHS is removed (who wants/needs it?), but don't worry folks, it won't be. UNESCO's 'squad' will simply moan, groan and release the odd piece of flatulence. They will talk about putting us on the 'at risk' list, someone should inform these plonkers that this is a town and not some rare form of Whale or Dolphin.

I bet that local conservation/heritage groups are heading for a melt-down about now.

24

,

28/08/2008 17:40:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 17:45:26
#24 Buttress

Snap!!
26

Buttress,

28/08/2008 17:50:12
I do wish though you would be accurate. The Canongate Venture was in use until the council evicted thsoe using it successfully toi flog off to Mountgrange, and if the scheme is delayed there is a fund to landscape the demolition site for the bus garage.

No-one I have spoken to is in meltdown.

Naturally, it is UNESCO business, under international agreements willingly entered into by the UK government, but I am sure that really you know all that really.

27

noswod,

Honestus 28/08/2008 22:06:00
More wanton destruction by the Edinburgh planning committe. Leith Docks, Cannongate, Haymarket. Cheap badly designed buildings, glass boxes, with no regard to the historical content of the sites and certainly no concept of how to develop an integrated site that maintains the essence of Edinburgh that made it a great city. New modern buildings could be built that fit into these sites and uplift the soul and regenerate areas, but that takes an imagative approach that does not exist in modern Edinburgh. Each time these depressing new buildings go up a piece of Edinburgh dies and the poor and dispossesed are moved out, where to ?. When the establishment tries a new build we end up with the Scottish parliament. The curved roof being a representive of the "upturned boats at Leith " is that the historical legacy that the 21st Century wishes to give to the future ? I dispair and I am off to Vancouver on Zoom.
28

Buttress,

28/08/2008 22:19:00

Ah but you me, and UNESCO have it wrong, according to one very badly misinformed Richrd Murphy in Building Design:


http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3121300&c=1


Shame he hasn't bothered to do any research on UNESCO before opening his trap and making a fool of hissel'.

Still, he must be right, he designed the Haymarket Tower.

29

seanie,

28/08/2008 22:43:38
Whatever faults there may be regarding the Caltongate development, it's difficult to see how it could have much impact on the Edinburgh skyline.
30

,

28/08/2008 22:57:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

Buttress,

28/08/2008 22:59:33
It's awfie bulky - and really not that grand - but I think (if you are talking of Mr Matsuura) that he was possibly being quoted out of context. His visit really wasn't to talk about the World Heritage Committee delegation and it's not his area. He was maybe speakig in far more general terms. However, to say that it's nothing to do with UNESCO is unbelievably misinformed.

The Haymarket Tower will though, and the proposed St James' Centre possibly? The Leith development?

There's a great deal of wildly inaccurate nonsensee being bandied around in the press. Pity Richard Murphy is adding to it.




32

Flan Haggis,

28/08/2008 23:03:34
Regardless of the views expressed here, the majority of comments on this new channel seem to tell their own story!

http://uk.youtube.com/m0rganson
33

Buttress,

28/08/2008 23:06:03
Under international agreements signed by the UK government re World Heritage, a development of the size of Caltongate should have been referred to the World Heritage Committee early in the planning procedure. It was not. The council has only itself to blame for that.

I do feel Lowrie should resign from his position (as the council nominee) on the Board of Directors of Edinburgh World Heritage. EWH has been marginalised throughout the planning process, its very real concerns and major objections ignored, not least by the same Lowrie at Planning Committee.

I am sure there are far better people who could take his place.
34

grey fatique,

caltongate 29/08/2008 00:14:28
Its not that people are against the development its just the rubbish architecture the council accept. All we ask is for significant designs by leading international designers and architects such as Sir Norman Foster or Zaha Hadid. The other problem being the council do not force high enough standards including the choice of materials, the poor build quality and the lack of imagination in landscaping of the area. We have to be the most bland
If we design better new buildings UNESCO would not be knocking on the door.
35

Think Tank,

29/08/2008 00:47:29
Credit to you Buttress, you continue to post links to stories that completely undermine your argument.

You're striking observation of the bd article is that Richard Murphy doesn't understand UNESCO rules, even though Historic Scotland (admittedly an embarrassment themselves) say it's all okay.

EVERYONE else who isn't blinded to the anti-Caltongate debate, on reading the article does a massive double take when reading that the DIRECTOR GENERAL of UNESCO, states:

“I am a bit concerned about the Caltongate development… modern high rises should not be built in historic city centres or in areas where they would have a significant impact."

High rise?

Has he even seen the Caltongate plans???

It's an absolute, elemental HUMILIATION for UNESCO and their standing in this whole debate. I can just see the disappointment amongst SOOT/EH8 types as they realise the final straw they've been clutching onto is actually a bit of a dud.

Yes, you unelected quango of imbeciles, let's stop half a billion pounds worth of investment in Edinburgh whilst you spend the next 18 months examining the proposals (presumably actually seeing the proposal in about a year's time- can't rush these things).

What a joke- thanks for bringing it to my attention Buttress.

36

Buttress,

29/08/2008 07:21:08
Think Tank - Actually great deal of what you say is incorrect, but as you cannot even discuss without banality and bile (an unelected quango of imbeciles? Really? What qualifications do you have then to so detride those involved?)

Historic Scotland has invited UNESCO to visit as it is concerned about certain developments. I presume you have read the report from the July international World Heritage conference.

It's clear Think Tank you don't have the intellectual capabilities to comment with any insight whatsoever. Until you do, I would gently uggest you cease to waste space in these threads.

37

Buttress,

29/08/2008 07:21:16
Think Tank - Actually great deal of what you say is incorrect, but as you cannot even discuss without banality and bile (an unelected quango of imbeciles? Really? What qualifications do you have then to so detride those involved?)

Historic Scotland has invited UNESCO to visit as it is concerned about certain developments. I presume you have read the report from the July international World Heritage conference.

It's clear Think Tank you don't have the intellectual capabilities to comment with any insight whatsoever. Until you do, I would gently suggest you cease to waste space in these threads.

38

Buttress,

29/08/2008 11:13:01
For the unwary - a great deal of what Mt Matsuura actually said has been missed from that quote in post 35. His remarks re high rise were more general than Caltongate.

Beware believing all you read in the press folks.
39

Bigwull,

edinburgh 29/08/2008 13:09:25
maybe not so many tourists, hooray I've got my city back
40

Casey Beer,

29/08/2008 14:09:21
#38 Beware believing all you read in the press folks.

Well said Buttress. This equally applies to all posts including yours. Oh, and, emm, err, mine too.
41

,

29/08/2008 14:18:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

Buttress,

29/08/2008 14:37:57
But Septic - it's the only game you play!

Nudge nudge, eh? Really? Is that what you read? Heavens.

Libel, eh? Well. I don't think you have a clue about the libel laws. No-one has prosecuted me yet.

I don't have a relationship with Historic Scotland Septic. None at all. 'Back as the path to UNESCO'? Really? I wonder what times if you have even the most vague of understanding of what goes on.

Nope, I didn't comment on that article, although it's not entirely accurate,

Mind you might want to remark on post 41 on that thread you posted.

I will rest assured Septic. You and the budgie have noted.

Gosh though - you do seem to have some mad fixation with me. Does the budgie share it?

And here's an exciting link:

www.eh8.org.uk

and the blog is always an interesting read.

Have a nice day Septic! Don't drown in your excess of bile!

:-)
43

Buttress,

29/08/2008 14:45:50
Oh by the way Septic - HS wasn't found to be corrupt. Just for the record. You wouldn't want to be guilty of libel now, would you?




44

Rap,

29/08/2008 15:01:58
Quite ironic that "Mr Murphy, who designed the Fruitmarket Gallery in Edinburgh, Dundee Contemporary Arts and the Stirling Tolbooth, said: "Listings can be granted on the whim of one or two officials, which is simply astonishing in a democracy. There seems to be no forum for discussion and debate.""

Particularly since when we tried to speak to him about the horrendous 3* hotel at Haymarket (which is to be covered in cheap Carea blocks which don't even blend with the rest of the development never mind the surrounding buildings (and so goes against the Local Plan) he didnt want to discuss it. He is the Masterplan architect after all....
45

Buttress,

29/08/2008 15:10:24
Well, I note Mr M has been commenting in Building Design:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3121300&c=1

I also note that the 'EH8' lot have made it there too! Juile from SOOT was on telly this week, Times, radio...


Of course it couldn't be that Murphy makes money out of developing stuff could it? And wants an easy ride, without anyone saying nay? Developers and architects - not a cosy club, all in it for the cash,, surely? No, they do it for philanthropic reasons of course.

That picture showing the 17 storey Haymarket Tower as a benign low-level affair has been used again I see. Maybe the hotel is designed to house people of around three feet in height?



46

Rap,

29/08/2008 15:19:12
Buttress, it is the very same Mr M whose life is made more difficult because he needs to jump through nasty planning hurdles to create his egotistical designs. I wonder why he doesn't like jumping hurdles? And the very same Mr M whose own house application was refused, partly because of the impact on the World Heritage site. Perhaps he's a little bitter?
47

Rap,

29/08/2008 15:24:57
I'm sick of that Tiger Tower photo. If he had balls he'd use the one of the front view, looking from Grosvenor St where is looks like a dalek, broad and hide, and no sign of his sodding leaf footprint anywhere.

I'm just writing my comments on the Haymarket Urban Design Framework, which is meant to act as a starting point for a masterplan for Haymarket, considering all the development work, including a new station I hope. Of course the document wasn't released for public consultation until a week before the Tiger Tower planning application was granted. Seems a little daft to me consulting on an area where a big chunk has now been decided (assuming Swinney gets his way). Why on earth on should a commercial site now dictate the form and function of the Haymarket Station and traffic hub, to be paid for by taxpayers. Happy about that Think Tank?
48

Buttress,

29/08/2008 15:26:01
46 Oh surely it couldn't be. I read another article recently about Mr M and that house (mught have been in BD) and he says lots of architects wrote and supported his plans. So he must be delighted.

Yes they did - odd though, didn't you find they seemed to be employed by him?

Never mind, he's going to appeal he says. I'm sure he will. All those objectors can't be right can they?

Yes, those nasty restrictions - do away with planning laws I say. Remove listed building and WHS status. Allow Mr M and the developer mafia, alongside Mr Ron Hewitt and his pals in the Chamber of Commerce of course, to rape the fair city as much as they like, without having to worry their artistic little souls about such things as aesthetics. I am sure that they need the cash.

49

Buttress,

29/08/2008 15:27:45
I think Septic may be running wild naked elsewhere at the moment:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Terns-kill-off--700.4440023.jp#3175485

50

Rap,

29/08/2008 15:31:33
Well, I wasn't suggesting any sort of conspiracy of course, but I find it a little strange that of the three people on the planning portal who have written to support his design, all three appear on his company's staff page (but didn't declare any interest of course). I just thought it a little odd. And another person, who has seen the paper copies of the submissions, said another three had written in support and they also appear on his staff page.
51

Buttress,

29/08/2008 16:03:20
Clearly they all love his work. Odd cos I thought it was a terrible clunking design, unlike the really interesting modern building over the road.

No, no don't even think about a conspiracy.

And never mention manilla either, not in any context, or Septic will be demanding you take your evidence and lay it before the legal profession.

The Haymarket Urban Design Framework, eh? Mmmmm. I get an image of Septic's budgie cage. Won't dwell on what's likely to be at the bottom. Possibly lined with broon paper too.

Masterplanner.

Well, I know what Terry Farrell said this week on radio about Masterplanning for Embra.









52

Think Tank,

29/08/2008 22:23:00
Since the embarrassed self-appointed censors have knocked off another one of my posts (again defeating the point of a debate), I'll simply post this link:

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburghplanningissues/Hysteric-Scotland-Planning-quango39s-competence.3607012.jp

And to QUOTE from the article:

"Historic Scotland has been rapped for entering Mr White's property without his permission"

"It has also been branded "inept and incompetent" by the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman."

"Controversy has flared over a number of recent rulings, ranging from gasometers, tower blocks, a sundial, an airfield, a homeless hostel and a nightclub in Glasgow."

53

Buttress,

29/08/2008 23:47:17
But you see you don't debate. You make scurrilous accusations, you spread bile. So no wonder it's removed.

So - not corrupt after all as you stated?

Actually they didn't do much more than stand on a path I seem to recall. The report is available to read.


And gosh - controversy has flared, eh? You and the budgie?

Yawn. Not much there to get knickers in a twist about.



54

Think Tank,

30/08/2008 00:39:07
Whatever you say Sally

I don't think the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman saw it that way:

"inept and incompetent"
55

Buttress,

30/08/2008 09:40:38
Unfortunately Septic - you have it wrong yet again!

Sally? Not me! Ho ho!

I'd read the report.

Not sure what any of that has to to with Caltongate though.

Apart from the fact - major problems with HS and its stance over the demolitions. Scared to say no.
56

Buttress,

31/08/2008 15:16:48
An excellent piece here:

http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2436904.0.nothing_less_than_vandalism.php
57

Buttress,

31/08/2008 16:09:35
From that:

"Unfortunately in recent years Edinburgh has been plagued by councillors who, though their politics differ, have one thing in common - their egos are bigger than their brains and their judgement is wanting. Puffed up and romanced by developers and modernist architects who feed them the pretentious, self-aggrandising vocabulary of "iconic buildings", "signature architecture", "architectural statements" and "iconoclastic, brave development" - like teenage vandals carving their initials on the ancient stones of the Acropolis - they yearn to leave their hubristic mark on the city for posterity. Hence the spate of fatally misconceived plans that are being given the go-ahead, even though they perpetuate old mistakes and grind their killer heels in the face of Edinburgh's handsome heritage."

58

Think Tank,

04/09/2008 20:20:35
Honest question Kathyrn:

Do you think William Beattie was entirely humble when he designed and built 49 Princes' Street (Jenners). Do you think he had an ego or wanted to build an iconic piece of architecture?

In fact what of the architects of all of the other OLD buildings in Edinburgh that we all love- all entirely humble in their plans? All in touch with the desires of the local community?

59

Buttress,

08/09/2008 10:02:18
Who on earth is Kathryn?

Why are you posting daft qusetions to some unknown poster?
60

Think Tank,

08/09/2008 22:26:26
Sorry Sally.

Questions still stand though.

61

gshughes,

Newastle 17/09/2008 22:22:43
Put simply, what is the point in listing buildings, if the council allow them to be demolished simply so they can make money ?

The results of today's Scotsman poll makes interesting reading - 72 % against Caltongate - a very high % of ordinary people, but when have their views ever mattered to politicians ?
62

Buttress,

17/09/2008 23:25:11
Septic still has it wrong.

But 61 - I agree!
63

Think Tank,

21/09/2008 12:18:50
Kathyrn, it was a clear yes/no question that I asked you.

"Wrong" isn't answering the question.

It's yet ANOTHER dodge of a question you and your friends can't answer.

64

Rap,

23/09/2008 16:03:55
Non-Think Tank,
I have no idea who Kathryn is, but I'll give you an answer. I am not an architect but an engineer and I think there is a difference between individuality and ego. I'm not entirely sure what order the buildings were built on Princes St., but the remaining ones show a high degree of individuality which is admirable. But, look at the mass of the Jenners building and it's height. As I said, I have no idea which of it's neighbouring buildings came first, but they are all of a comparable style (ignoring twiddly filigree bits) and height.

I think if the Jenner building was built after a couple of neighbouring buildings and it was 4 times the height of it's surrounding buildings (because the architect was after a genital extension and loved the word iconic) and it was of a completely different style, then I'd say that was ego. As it stands, it has it's own personality which attracts attention without having to SHOUT to get it by ridiculous extremes. It has individuality.

Satisfied?
65

Think Tank,

25/09/2008 19:39:35
Ah yes, Rap's obsession with the Haymarket tower a perfect match for Butresses' obsession with Caltongate.

We could have a circular argument about the height of the Balmoral Hotel clock tower but let's not. The point is that great architecture across the globe is created by people trying to do things differently. And a consistent theme is initial local opposition across the ages.

Take the Scottish Parliament building- a fantastic piece of architecture. If you took a poll on it's opening day most local people would say they hate it; it was indeed voted for Channel 4 demolition. Several years on opposition has decreased and more people enjoy it. In a generation it will be considered one of the fine buildings of Edinburgh. It's a story repeated the world over, generation after generation.

You may think your objection is highly original but it really isn't. Difference makes us stronger and it makes the architectural heritage of our city far,far more formidable.

66

Rap,

26/09/2008 10:25:48
Think Tank, why bother to ask a specific question and then completely ignore my answer?

I am not obsessed by Haymarket Tower (I didn't mention it in my response) but as the development as a whole will have a direct impact on where I live, I don't think it unreasonable to use it as an example of relatively inapropriate design. In the right place, and perhaps even taller, it may look fine. But it's context doesn't demand an egotistical iconic gateway.

Why try and turn this into a personal argument, as you are with Buttress? My concerns are not about whether I think am being original or not but the practicalities of living near such a development, and how it looks and functions. Why not try and address why people are unhappy with it instead of trying to bat the arguments away by saying it's unoriginal? Your only argument seems to be that even if most people hate it now, they'll grow to love it in time. Hardly a resounding defence of the architecture.

And, if you had read any of my responses, you would have seen this is not purely about the architectural merits of a single buildings, it's how a site works as a whole within the existing environment. That includes environmental issues (air quality at Haymarket which is already one of the worst in Edinburgh), the appropriateness of materials of all buildings not just the phallic one (since when has a Carea clad building see as fitting for an area which is predominantly stone, apart from the horror which is Haymarket House), the windiness of the public realm which is not hiding behind private screens. And that's on top of the suitability of Tiger Towers.

Architecture has to be about more than a single isolated building. It has to be considered within the existing environment. It's not like a piece of art which can be moved and matched to a suitable background. It's fixed and immovable. And, I doubt that the Parliament building will ever be considered as one of the fine buildings of Edinburgh by the residents.
67

Rap,

26/09/2008 10:31:32
And you know what Think Tank, one of the things that really annoys me with the development and the Council's Planning Dept? That the Haymarket development will now dictate the form and function of the Haymarket Station upgrade, which is funded by tax payers money. They couldn't wait so that the "transport hub" they are planning is the driving force behind the redevelopment. Instead, a commercial site - which is probably going to be half empty on a good day - will now dictate how the station will be aligned and redeveloped. One poncy tower has so much more to consider than whether it will be considered a "fine building" in 76 years time.
68

Think Tank,

26/09/2008 19:54:08
We've done this before Rap.

People object to buildings. The planning process hasn't 'failed locals' if not every single objection is addressed. You and Buttress have both argued for yet more bureaucratic planning policy in Edinburgh, and crazy ideas like allowing every objector as much time on the floor as the proposer.

It's far too easy to object. Sometimes, stupid people object. I mean really, really dumb people who don't want a new development on their doorstep because it's "different". Or because of "traffic during construction". That's not a reason to block a new development! There's always going to be a balance between objectors and development but if our planning process becomes any more ridiculously convoluted there simply won't be any more serious investment in Edinburgh at all.

Who would bother to put up with such nonsense as happened at Caltongate? 300 objectors delaying a scheme by years. How many people objected to the Haymarket Tower?

You clearly have an objection to the Haymarket Tower, but that's the planning process. I'm sure there are many local residents who can't wait to see the turn around in the area and enjoy the rising property prices. Do we start allowing objectors to objectors?

69

Rap,

27/09/2008 13:09:00
Think Tank,
We may have done this before, but obviously you did the same thing and put words between my lines that I didn't write. I have never asked for a more bureaucratic planning policy, just that they follow the one they have. I don't think every objector should get a say at the hearings, but considering how much time the developer has spent with the CEC Planning Dept (never mind the £££ and the associated consultants), the 3-10 mins doesn't amount to much does it?

But your main fault here is to assume it is (or Buttress and I are asking for) a purely a binary system, it's either this development or nothing. That is not the case. I certainly feel there are grounds to compromise, and this is not happening. For example, the reason Richard Murphy gave for the height of his building was that the hotel chain demanded at least 180 rooms, with the implication (left unsaid) that they would walk away if there were any less. Now, is that simple business case the only reason to have a 17 storey building there? Is that really sufficient justification? I don't think so personally.

I have never tried to "block" this development, only request changes in the areas that I felt needed work. Now I know many of the objectors (including those who probably write in green ink) demanded a block, but realistically that was never going to happen. So, you have to try for the best you can get - and did any of the public objections get addressed? No. The Planning Dept's did - the need for a proper retail ground floor so it didn't turn into an Festical Sq/EICC wilderness, hence pushing the height of the building up. The re-orientation of the 5* hotel's main door to face the station, despite no taxis being able to access this door.
What did locals want, apart from a lower Tiger Tower? A free, easily accessible public loo which was sort of on the first plans, but by the end had gone underground, in the centre of the site, and is now fee paying. Also, the material of the 3* hotel was t
70

Rap,

27/09/2008 13:14:29
Also, the material of the 3* hotel was to be matched to the rest of the material on their own site, and of neighbouring buildings, but it's now cheap grey concrete panels. The width of the "boulevard" between the main hotel and the central office block, was quoted to be on average the width of Multrees Walk. Which sounds ok, but then try driving traffic, including tourist coaches along there, and it doesn't seem so wide - and that's not the narrowest part, that's the average width. Now, that really is a canyon round most of the site. And, a lot of this comes back to the consultation process which was dire, and Alan Henderson tells us we are not legally entitled to anyway. Yes, that's the sort of attitude which really gives people a warm fuzzy feeling about developments like this.

So, all locals wanted was a real justification by the Planning Dept as to why some aspects of the site broke their own planning policies (heights, materials, etc) and none was ever made. That's not calling for new processes, that's asking for existing ones to be followed. And it's also made a mockery of local objections if none of the (only a few listed) requests made were addressed.

And although a few round here do object to the whole development, almost everyone does want redevelopment of the bleak car park (including me). But, the point is, as I have already mentioned, it that it should not be a binary process, you take this or nothing else. The Council realised the previous plans which they had approved are now badly designed and so jump to this one, but we are just trying to say it can happen all over again. But worse because this might actually get built. And the reason why time should be taken is that Edinburgh has to put up with the results.

You seem keen to trying and reduce our arguments down to simlifications of what we are really saying. It should never be about an architect's ego to win awards or see his work in place for posterity, these are public places and should b
71

Rap,

27/09/2008 13:15:52
It should never be about an architect's ego to win awards or see his work in place for posterity, these are public places and should be treated with respect. It's not a case of blocking new developments because they are new. we just want the best we can get and this step is not working well, Planning seem too keen to hold hands with developers and rush to the finish line.

Look at the Haymarket Station redevelopment, they are carrying out feasibility studies, held public meetings and exhibitions, and if the money is there, no building will take place before 2012. It's a more complex site, but it's also our money, so they can't rush into the simplest design. Why should we accept that commercial sites should be able to knock up their plans, which impact us all, in any less time.
72

Think Tank,

28/09/2008 12:57:33
I'll say this much Rap, you're far more eloquent and reasoned than Buttress.

I think there has been reasonable give-and-take on the Haymarket Towers site- the fact that the first scheme was entirely rejected shows that there has been consideration of the area. The concerns of the planning committee and locals about toilet provision have been addressed. But again you're expecting everyone to agree with every single one of your planned changes, and express disappointment when only half of them are met. That's the give-and-take process.

I think we have to get past the simplistic argument (particularly portrayed it must be said by SOOT, eh8 etc.) that private investment = bad, public investment = good.

In the current financial climate we have a developer willing to put in £200m of investment into a frankly rundown area of Edinburgh. And develop a scheme that will create jobs and help to drive further investment into the area. That kind of investment simply can't be generated from the public purse. Your own example of the Haymarket Station development- you may think that delays to 2012 represent more time for thinking...my opinion is that it's now 15 years of dithering over the second most crucial transport hub in our city. Indeed it is the delays in addressing Haymarket station that have arguably kept the West of Edinburgh down. A forward thinking city would realise the importance delivering high quality public transport hubs around which private developers can be inticed to invest. The tram scheme is excellent for Edinburgh, but should have happened a decade ago. We're miles behind cities like London using high quality transport hubs as the basis for regeneration.

So when a developer is willing to invest £200m to drive regeneration you simply can't expect to take a list of objections and expect every single one of them to be met. They have clearly made changes with regard to the lower floors, orientation, toilet provision. But surely you see that making th
73

Think Tank,

28/09/2008 12:57:50
But surely you see that making the site commercially unviable by further changes simply kills the scheme.

Now people like Buttress would rather that nothing happened unless it addressed every single objection from every group (even though they often contradict each other). But then if people like Buttress ran Edinburgh we would be living in a city full of gap sites and no private investment.
74

Rap,

29/09/2008 18:12:56
Think Tank, our thinking will never overlap. I start from a position of healthy scepticism, that any business is only in it for what money can be made. Not all are like that, but most are (usually understandably so they can continue to grow and employ staff), but to take it to the extreme you end up in the financial situation we are currently in.

So, assuming no-one is going to come along and act in an entirely altruistic way, and drag poor downtrodden Haymarket up from the gutter just for their own good, then any developer is only there for the dosh, the cold hard ££££. Do we agree at this point? There has to be money to be made or they wouldn't have stumped up their £50m to the Council.

So, then you add on the commercial target of the developer to the award winning ego of the architect. Who, I believe from my admittedly limited dealings with any architects, never mind "award winning" architects, have to have a drive to create, inspire and leave a little record of their existence for posterity dahling. Some may genuinely consider the little people, but having tried to communicate with the "award winning" architect in this case, I didn't see much evidence of it.

So, they consult on their grand plan, doing what they are told to do after learning from the failure of the original plan for the site, with public consultation having been a big (documented) failure. They listen and note all the little people's comments. They even show signs of making compromises to the grand plan (on a very minor scale of course). And then the grand plan is formally submitted and we realise it's actually grand plan MK II, markedly different to what was discussed with the little people and no sign of compromises.

So, little people spend a lot of time, unpaid in addition to their own non-planning, non-architect jobs, trying to find all the bits that have been carefully hidden, and the implications of this and that and they submit a formal response and await for grand plan MK III.
75

Rap,

29/09/2008 18:15:50
MK III also shows absolutely no concessions, despite so many of them from the little people being pretty easy wins - stuff that would genuinely shut people up, improve the quality of their lives based on grand plan MK II. Suggestions from the Council, however, have been implemented, but the Council's needs/wants strangely so not appear to overlap with those of local residents at all. Talking to money grabbing developer it is clear they could not give a flying fkuc, and you are seen purely as an annoyance (one in particular who should never be allowed in front of the public).

So, little people submit responses to grand plan MK III and await gobbets of news. Some little people are allowed into the Council buildings to speak to Councillors and Planning Officials for the first time (very disappointing Planning Officials!) and get 10 mins to put their undeniably genuine concerns across. Egotistical architect and money grabbing developer boss schmooze and waffle, and even lie (about the location of the loos for example).

Two of the requests of the little people are actually listened to at this point, despite them being in the original consultation, original objections, and the second objections. So, not only have money grabbing developers ignored them, so have the Planning Officials, who you naively think are employed to read objections. It's taken 9 months but finally a Council official has realised free public loos in the locale may be quite nice, particularly since the Station's facilities survey showed its are terrible and are likely to be shut down for years for work. And the Council officials finally realise that the material of the 3* hotel (and it's design, but that's ignored) doesn't even match the rest of the own development, and concede they need a little chat amongst themselves about it. And this is the easy win stuff I was talking about. This is an example of the stuff that was raised during consultation and the developer's made noises about addressing
76

Rap,

29/09/2008 18:23:01
and then ignored. Just those simple things to appease the community would help. But no, we are told by one slimy Tiger employee he just didn't like the public toilets so he wanted them moved away from where the visiting little people would be because they might actually use them. He says that if local businesses fail as a result of the supermarket then they deserve it because they obviously need a kick up the bottom. And remember, most of the complaints were not about making anything commercially nonviable, but community viable - much more important in a civilised society I think.

I'm not anti development, I'm for it, but everyone gets to contribute not just egotistical architect and money grabbing developer and rabbit in the headlights Planning Officials. And we should all have to follow the game rules that are already in place. I'm pro-tram because you can't fit any more buses on the road. Bring them on. It'll be like childbirth, give it 6 months and no-one will remember the current hell we are experiencing.

I'm disappointed the station would only start redevelopment in 2012 at the very earliest, assuming all the Council agree and it goes ahead. That's not thinking time delay, that's red tape delay. The Executive could of course think it needs to happen faster, and we'll see.

My opinions are based on real experiences, not an assumed position because I'm anti-architect or anti-developer, or anti-anything new. I just think of the ground rules are in place, we can and should allow play nicely and benefit everyone, and because I don't think that is happening I'm not happy. It's as easy as that.
77

Buttress,

30/09/2008 19:40:16
Oh dear - Septic still at it?

I'm not any of the names Septic and his alter ego Howard Moon calls me, and I'm not 'obsessed;' with Caltongate either - for the record, I'm against the Haymarket Tower too, and any idea of putting a tall building on the St James' Centre redevelopment, and cladding period buildings with glass facades...

And yes Rap, Septic always puts words between the lines and misreads and misrepresents what you say! And writes thoughts supposedly belonging to me which certainly don't.

However - 300 objectors did not delay Caltongate at all, did they? It went through without any inquiry. And the ability to object is still, in this country, part of the democratic process.


I note though Setic can't post without the snide'stuff about me being reasoned etc etc..

Septic - I can't really be bothered to argue with you. You haven't the knowledge or the intellect, and you are, in my experience, a shallow thinking google merchant with an obsession.


78

Buttress,

30/09/2008 19:58:42
"I think we have to get past the simplistic argument (particularly portrayed it must be said by SOOT, eh8 etc.) that private investment = bad, public investment = good"

"You and Buttress have both argued for yet more bureaucratic planning policy in Edinburgh, and crazy ideas like allowing every objector as much time on the floor as the proposer."



Absolute and utter tosh. Which is the problem with Septic. Makes it up as he goes along.


79

Buttress,

30/09/2008 20:02:12
"Now people like Buttress would rather that nothing happened unless it addressed every single objection from every group (even though they often contradict each other). But then if people like Buttress ran Edinburgh we would be living in a city full of gap sites and no private investment."

Absolute twaddle Septic. You simply make up porkies as you go along.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Blogs


Sections