Latest news with #ClydesideClearance
The Herald Scotland
4 days ago
- General
- The Herald Scotland
Signs of trouble ahead for Glasgow's buildings
This is good news for several reasons. It protects a piece of historic architecture in a part of Glasgow – Possilpark – that's seen a lot of change, decline and neglect. It also recognises that, while the Vogue may not be the finest building ever, it is one of the last examples of architect James McKissack's work in cinemas in the 1930s and that makes it worthy of preserving. And perhaps most importantly, it means that if the owners want to develop the site, and it appears they do, they will have to incorporate the original cinema into their plans. That this is possible – keeping the cinema and developing the site at the same time – is beyond doubt, as the architect Alan Dunlop demonstrated when he prepared drawings outlining how it could be done. Mr Dunlop's suggestions show how you can combine something like an art deco cinema with something more modern and come up with a design that's practical and aesthetically pleasing. Old and new, working together. All good stuff. But even if we assume the Vogue has now been saved and will survive in some form, it's worth digging into the details of the ruling for it's in there that we find the signs of danger. The ruling was made by Alasdair Edwards, a reporter appointed by the government, and he essentially agrees with the decision of Historic Environment Scotland (HES) that the cinema is of special architectural or historic interest and should be listed. He does point out, in the euphemistic language of such reports, that the building has been subject to 'unsympathetic modifications' – it's a mess basically – but fortunately he can see beyond that to the building underneath, the building that's still there and is worth saving. Read more Will the 'Clydeside Clearance' go ahead? A court is about to decide | The Herald There's a price for gentrification. I've met the people paying it | The Herald Do not believe the middle-class moaning about private schools | The Herald The problems and signs of danger arise when he examines how we got to this point. Basically what happened is that the council originally granted a warrant to demolish the building and the owners went ahead and started. A member of the public then raised the alarm but HES said they wouldn't list the building because the council had issued the demolition warrant. As outrage grew, the council then appeared to have a change of heart and issued a building preservation order and HES restarted their process and decided second time around that the building should be listed after all. Mr Edwards is highly critical of all this in his report and rightly so. The owners of the Vogue argued at the original hearing that two different, inconsistent decisions were made by HES on the same facts which was unfair and the reporter has effectively agreed with that. Mr Edwards says in his report that HES did not explain its rationale for changing the decision on listing the Vogue which was 'unsatisfactory'. He also says the transparency of the decision-making was 'less than satisfactory'. Unsatisfactory. Less than satisfactory. All euphemisms for bad. The behaviour of the council was even worse. What emerged from the hearing is that there were no inspections, no checks and no real questions asked by the council before they issued the original permission to demolish the Vogue. It also looks like there was no system for council departments to properly talk to each other: building control, who issue the demolition warrants, did not communicate with planning, who are in charge of conservation, so no discussion took place on whether there were issues with the cinema that the council should be looking into. The Vogue (Image: Newsquest) Mr Edwards was not impressed by this. The fact, he said, that there was no formal communication between council staff regarding the application for demolition of the building was 'peculiar' (another of his euphemisms). He also said the lack of communication within the council meant a substantial amount of the building was removed, including features of architectural interest. In language more restrained than I would use, he concluded HES and the council 'could have handled the listing process better'. The real danger here – specifically for other buildings at risk – is that HES and the council don't act on the ruling and make the process better. In the case of HES, they appear to have refused to list the building the first time round because there was a demolition order in place which is the wrong way round. HES should be making its decisions on the merits of the buildings – either it's worth listing or it isn't – and should be communicating their decisions clearly and consistently. As for the council, it needs to have a serious look at its procedures and improve the communication between Building Standards and Planning. If the council had been more proactive in serving a preservation notice when the owners first applied to demolish the Vogue, this whole debacle might have been avoided. Having said all that, we do at least have a ruling that the Vogue must be preserved, which is great; as Mr Dunlop points out, any other decision would create a perverse incentive for owners to unilaterally demolish buildings before HES can carry out its assessments. But what we really need is a system that's robust and focused on protecting Glasgow's buildings. It's not about stopping development or even some demolition (some buildings have to come down). But it is about recognising that we nearly lost the Vogue because the current system is incoherent, inconsistent, confused and ineffective. So the next step is to fix it, before the next case comes along, and we end up with another pile of rubble.
The Herald Scotland
5 days ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
There's a price for gentrification. I've met the people paying it
It turned out that on the other side was a family who very much disagree with the theory that the new bridge and the flats and the regeneration is 100% good for Govan. One of the people from the council said to me that gentrification wasn't part of the picture with the bridge and the flats because the development was bringing in people with a bit of money in their pockets to support the services and wasn't displacing a community. The Stringfellow family, the family living on the other side of the fence near the bridge, beg to differ. The bottom line is that Glasgow City Council want to expand the development of the Govan side of the bridge and want the Stringfellow family off the site so they can build more flats and landscape the area. The Stringfellows – who are travellers and make their living, or used to, from taking their rides and shows round Scotland – say they've been on the site for more than 40 years and should have the right to remain. I say 'used to make their living' because the family say the council blocked off the exit at the site, meaning the Stringfellows can't get their trucks in and out so effectively can't work. The situation between the two sides is pretty tense it has to be said and will come to a head in September when the council's attempt to evict the Stringfellows reaches the Court of Session. The council argues a straightforward commercial lease applies therefore the family can be evicted with 28 days' notice, but the Stringfellows' lawyers will argue that not giving the family the same rights as other council tenants is discrimination based on the fact they don't live in a house. They also argue that the youngest member of the family, who's five, has protection under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I went to visit the family the other week and it's obvious the situation is taking its toll. The patriarch Jimmy, who I liked a lot even though he wasn't taking any nonsense from me, told me he had 'stainless steel skin' and was up for the fight. But his health isn't what it was and his daughter Chanel said the case had aged her parents. She said her mum Diane cries and cries at night because she doesn't know where she's going to be; she doesn't know if her family is about to be split up. Read more Will the 'Clydeside Clearance' go ahead? A court is about to decide | The Herald Do not believe the middle-class moaning about private schools No-shows. Screamers. And locked doors. Are our social norms breaking down? Obviously, court cases cannot be decided on emotions alone but I genuinely do not understand why the council is so insistent on this one. The Stringfellows have lived in their Govan yard for 44 years and there's a lot of support for them in the community. It's also striking that just across the river in the transport museum there are exhibits celebrating Glasgow's travellers and yet here is the council seeking to evict travellers from their homes. We either respect their non-traditional way of life or we don't. The case the council is making seems to be that one family shouldn't be able to stand in the way of a development that will benefit many more people and improve Govan and I do understand that new flats, and hopefully new businesses, will be good for the area. The man from the council told me the development of the bridge area isn't gentrification because a community isn't being displayed. But the truth is that an important part of the community absolutely is being displaced. The Stringfellows want to stay where they are in Govan and the council is telling them they can't. What's particularly frustrating is that I think a compromise is possible. I'm sure Jimmy isn't always easy to deal with, but he showed me plans they'd had drawn up by an architect that would allow the development to go ahead, albeit on a slightly reduced scale, and allow the family to stay where they are. The council say they've looked at the plans and they aren't feasible. But most of the land the Stringfellows live on wouldn't be built on anyway so the question here is one of proportion: is it proportionate to evict the Stringfellows when most of the flats could be built anyway, or built elsewhere? If we respect the right of the Stringfellows to live the way they want to, and if we respect the diverse history of Govan and the history of travellers, the answer must be no. Jimmy Stringfellow at home in Glasgow. (Image: Colin Mearns) So, despite what the man from the council said to me, this does look like the downside of gentrification. There have definitely been some great improvements in the area – the renovation of the shop fronts, the restoration of the library and gates in Elder Park, and the bridge itself, all of these things have been good for a part of Glasgow that has great potential because it was largely spared most of the big 1960s planning disasters that decimated other working-class communities in the city. So let's not get it wrong now. And it's still not too late to introduce a bit of compassion into the process. The council say they've made exhaustive attempts to engage with the family without success and that they've proposed a number of alternative sites that would allow them to continuing living in caravans as they do at the moment, and all of that may be true. But answer me this. Have they really tried to put themselves in the place of the family? Have they imagined what it might be like to feel, as Jimmy put it to me, caged in like monkeys at the zoo? The Stringfellows aren't opposed to the development and regeneration of Govan, they're just asking for a bit of respect for the way they live and the right to stay in the place that's been their home for more than 40 years. I don't think that's unreasonable And I don't think their eviction is necessary. Let them stay.
