Quality of capital`s new buildings slammed

This article appeared in last Wednesday`s Scotsman 21st January page 16 by Brian Ferguson and has the title -

Quality of capital`s new buildings slammed and was a Scotsman Exclusive, it strangely has not appeared online, although this short version appeared in their sister paper The Evening News later that day.

"Scotland`s capital is being saddled with sub-standard develpments and poorly-designed new landmarks, a leading architectural body has claimed.

The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (AHSS)warned that inferior schemes were being appoved by Edinburgh council in the rush to secure economic investment.

The society said a vacuum in the planning system means no-one was able to exert influence to ensure high-quality designs.

The AHSS accused the city`s design leader Sir Terry Farrell of remaining "mute" while controversy has raged over major developments such as Haymarket and Caltongate, which triggered a Unesco investigation into the city`s world heritage status.

It also questioned the influence and role of Architecture Design Scotland(A&DS), the government-funded "national champion for good architecture, design and planning"

Concerns have been mounting among heritage groups in the capital over the quality of recent designs for major developments, including the scheme earmarked for the Cowgate fire site, a new hotel development on Princes Street, the 17-storey Haymarket complex and Caltongate, which will see more than 200 new homes, a five-star hotel, and conference centre built on The Royal Mile.

Euan Leitch, spokesman for the AHSS`s Forth and Borders cases panel said: "There is a perception in Edinburgh that the need for economic developent over-rides the desire for good design and that the planning department must accept proposals already agreed by the economic development team.

Better design need not have been more expensive. Too often we accept inferior architecture hidden behind a thin veneer of sandstone"

Jim Lowrie, convener of planning at the city council, acknowledged improvements were needed in the way major developments were handled , but insisted action was already taking place.

Sebastion Tombs, chief exectutive of A&DS, said "We get involved with major developments at an early stage, but we always agree that our comments during those discussions remain private. Having design competitions could improve things, but they would need developers to agree to co-operate

This is from Conservative Cllr Cameron Rose`sBlog who is on the Planning Committee

"The Cowgate site which was cleared after the much publicised fire five years ago has now received planning permission for a replacement development. The full planning committee supported the proposals earlier this week and this article gives more details including a brief quote from me. 'Angular and boxish. . . ' may not be a description which slips off the tongue - but it describes the outline of part of the proposal. I welcome many modern forms of architecture but what seems to be a growing tendency to celebrate square and rectangular shapes just does not look right - especially in an historic context. Some of the Waterfront buildings which have been built in recent years exibit a penchant for geometric designs which jar with the senses. In the case of the Cowgate, the proposals were passed as a whole but certain matters were reserved for further consideration..."


So all those boxy and angular historic buildings in the city by people like Adam etc... we just ignore? (Charlotte Square, anyone?) So does that mean we need wild organic shapes to fit into the historic context? Oh my god........This former policeman hasn't a clue!

Inside the minds of Edinburgh`s Plannning Committee

In todays Evening News, they reckon that the planning committee will pass yet another Allan Murray scheme, no surprises there then???? So lets all start to go loco down in SOCO...

The Edinburgh Association of Community Councils Question Time was held in the Business Centre of the City Chambers on Saturday December 6th 2008 from 10am to 12 noon. The topic under discussion was Planning and Economic Development

In attendance for the panel were: Planning Committee Convener -Cllr. Jim Lowrie (SLD - Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart --Cllr. Joanna Mowat (Conservative - City Centre),
Cllr. Steve Burgess (Green Party - Southside/Newington) Cllr Norma Hart (Labour Liberton/Gilmerton.

The main points of the discussion were: How the Planning and Development Committee works

Here are some of the days choice pieces -

"Cllr Lowrie noted in his opening remarks that he had been a councillor for 10 years, and acknowledged that the other councilors had been council members for just 18 months."

" All acknowledged that the workload for the Planning Committee was ‘very heavy', the training was continuous and frequent, and the newer councillors described their brief as the ‘steepest learning curve' they had ever experienced. "

"Councillor Hart noted that she had been surprised to learn just how ‘constrained' the Planning Committee was by legislation."

" Cllr Lowrie further noted that despite a current popular belief that the Committee is now influenced by decisions politically, this is not the case. Councillors from one party will often express different views and vote in opposition to each other over proposed developments.

Cllr Lowrie emphasized that the Committee does not have the powers to ‘really stop developments' if they are within the national and local policies and plans. "

and on the The Caltongate Development specifically-

Cllr Hart: The Labour Group voted for Caltongate. This was not a decision taken lightly. The application was scrutinized and qualified. There was a balance needed between interests and potential benefits. In general it seems possible to strike a balance. There is a significant degree of local discontent, yet there will be a new amenity, an important green site and cycle routes.

Cllr Mowat: We will be proud of the new development. It is not the abomination that some people describe. It will create safer routes from the station through to the Parliament buildings, some of which can at present be dangerous and threatening after 4.30 in winter. Those promoting the Heritage argument asked why we would allow this proposal to go through. We felt it would add to the area. The impossible ‘fish-bone' patterns of medieval times that were proposed by those supporting the Heritage views would not have been good for the site. The plan is now above the standard of plans usually seen.

Cllr Lowrie: We were successful in significantly changing the original concept. The original application passed in 2002 wasn't exciting and didn't generate a sense of place. Now a big square is part of the plan, with cafes and walkways. The route to Parliament will be vital and lively. There will be one big arch, but generally the frontage won't vary from that along the rest of the Royal Mile. " Read and weep at full minutes here

Wow what insight they all have, I for one am so proud that those people are on the capital`s planning committee, I will sleep well knowing this....................................where is my medication?