Edinburgh is held back by can't do attitude. It should be like Glasgow

The Herald Scotland

9 hours ago

The despoilation of much of Victorian Glasgow in the 1960s illustrates how badly things can go if there is no restraint or respect for the past, and Edinburgh citizens should be forever grateful a halt was called before the Abercrombie plan to turn Princes Street into a two-deck super highway lined with brutal Stalinist blocks was executed. Potterrow and Bristo Square was just the beginning.
Read more
But at least Glasgow can summon a can-do attitude when necessary, and the India Street student skyscraper can't be as bad as the grim post-war government offices it will replace. Since Edinburgh University got away with the Appleton Tower in the 1960s, overlooking Bristo Square and the only half-wrecked George Square, tall buildings in Edinburgh are taboo.
The last serious attempt was Tiger Developments' rejected 16- storey hotel at Haymarket, pitched as a 'gateway' to the city centre, stymied by fierce local opposition led by the late judge and West End resident, Lord McCluskey. Instead there is a black stump of offices in a half-built square flanked by the foundations for the International Conference Centre's hotel school, blocked by Edinburgh Council, its ranks of yellow-capped rusting metal rods from exposed reinforced concrete forlornly waiting for the first floor, a monument to the victory of personal animosity over vision.
My overall impression from The Herald's magnifying glass on Edinburgh is the extent to which a 'can't do, unless…' attitude still dominates debate, in which nothing happens without a host of conditions and caveats, adding cost and time to the smallest project.
Preserving the cityscape is well understood and accepted, but other adornments make Edinburgh a costly place to invest. New schools must be built to Scandinavian 'Passivhaus' standards of insulation, housing schemes must have district heating systems, car parking is limited but extensive bike storage is de rigueur, all for the sake of the unachievable goal of reaching net zero by 2030.
Edinburgh's George Street looking west. Picture:Gordon Terris (Image: Gordon Terris) New policy means 35 per cent of homes in all but the smallest new developments must be 'affordable', which makes the rest more unaffordable. I remember sitting with astonishment on the Development Management (DM) sub-committee as my colleagues considered rejecting the redevelopment of the old Sick Kids hospital because there should be two more affordable three-bedroom flats, despite the housing charity involved insisting there was no market for them in that location.
Speaking to a highly experienced development agent this week, he said that despite positive personnel changes on the DM sub-committee, building in Edinburgh was just getting harder. Policy-driven add-ons, like heat pumps and expensive insulation standards, mean obtaining planning permission is all very well, but getting companies to actually build is another when a diminishing number of construction contractors can prioritise simpler and more cost-effective schemes elsewhere.
Too many councillors set policy on the basis of what they want the world to be, not as it is, usually underscored by pronouncements that as Edinburgh is a wealthy place individuals and businesses should be happy to stump up more for the privilege. In the city of Enlightenment, it's apparently incumbent on us all to set an example to mankind, and like penitents who should feel guilty about any comfort or indulgence accept the cost and inconvenience of councillors' whims.
Concentrating so many arguments in the space of a week has, if anything, exposed the many contradictions which dog every argument about Edinburgh's future. We want it to be a good place to live and work, we want to attract more talent to boost the economy, but we'll make it harder to build the necessary homes and infrastructure.
Of course we need more housing, especially with over 5,000 families currently in temporary accommodation, but we don't want tower blocks or urban sprawl. We want everyone to live and work in a '20 minute neighbourhood' where everything is within walking distance, but we're going to persuade businesses to move out to make way for housing. We love our bus company, but they shouldn't be driving down Princes Street.
Read more
Similarly with tourism. We want Edinburgh to be a welcoming and popular place for visitors, just not so many of them, and we don't want the city to be a Harry Potter or Braveheart theme park (as if it is…).
We want tourists to spend money, but they shouldn't be sold junk. I marked my first trip to New York by buying a little yellow taxi, so I guess that makes me a tat-loving philistine. If they do come, they should be persuaded the Granton Gasholder is as worth seeing as the Castle and Holyroodhouse. We love the freedom and chaos of the Festival Fringe, but it needs to be brought under control.
We need overseas students to sign up for expensive university courses because we can't afford places for all the qualified locals who must be funded by, guess who, the taxpayer. But we don't want to allow more places for them to stay. We want businesses to come and invest, but they have got to be the right kind of firms who must play their part in tackling poverty so that 'no one gets left behind'. As for high-tech skilled jobs at defence specialists like Lenovo, couldn't they make air fryers or bread makers instead?
The good news is some in strong positions of influence get all this, but in a city which to outsiders must seem to have it all, the challenge is to persuade all those who make the rules that it can't.
John McLellan is a former Edinburgh Evening News and Scotsman editor. He served as a City of Edinburgh councillor for five years. Brought up in Glasgow, McLellan has lived and worked in Edinburgh for 30 years.