Building at bottom of Craigpark Drive
ccb posted on the 6/03/2016 9:47:29 PM
Does anyone know what the building is at the bottom of Craigpark Drive? If you are looking at Our Lady of Good Council, it's to the left of it. Just looks like a big block of bricks - no windows that I can see. Surprised something like that has been allowed to be built in a conservation area.
20 Replies :
#1 - Malarki replied on the 7/03/2016 12:54:38 AM
It's a house. Designed by award winning architects Dulchas. The church sets a precedent for more innovative design within the area. Historic Scotland had no objections. See: publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/advancedSearchResults.do?action=firstPage
#2 - ccb replied on the 7/03/2016 10:28:18 AM
Thanks for the info, couldn't get your link to work, what was your search criteria?
#3 - Giraffe replied on the 7/03/2016 9:59:38 PM
Try this link:
Failing that, it's planning application reference 13/02420/DC which you can put into the search box on this page: publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/
#4 - ccb replied on the 8/03/2016 1:21:41 AM
Brilliant, that worked, thank you.
#5 - The Mentalist replied on the 8/03/2016 7:17:48 PM
Don't know how this was passed. It's pretty horrible.
#6 - Malarki replied on the 8/03/2016 10:12:10 PM
Innovation is rarely popular. It's much easy to be conservative.
#7 - The Mentalist replied on the 9/03/2016 9:05:19 AM
I'm all for innovation but this is just ugly. My opinion.
#8 - MAR replied on the 9/03/2016 9:07:14 AM
I'm not so sure about it being innovative and I would think it looks a lot better from inside the grounds but from street level it is just a brick box. At least something is being done with the place but It will never be inspiring to passers by.
#9 - Malarki replied on the 9/03/2016 10:16:30 PM
Same is often said of Our Lady of Good Counsel - but it is one of the highlights of the open doors tours and has many admirers exactly because it is bold and uncompromising ... but also detractors for exactly the same reasons. Wouldn't it be great if the world was constructed to only your own taste?
#10 - The Mentalist replied on the 9/03/2016 10:27:08 PM
Yes Malarki, it would
#11 - Malarki replied on the 9/03/2016 11:19:18 PM
What I find distressing in the Dennistoun conservation area is the number of buildings that are left to rot by private owners or indeed the council for years. I can think of at least 5 which could be housing people rather than being left to deteriorate to the point that they are financially unviable to restore. Whether or not you appreciate the aesthetics of the new house, at least it is not derelict and will be providing habitable accommodation.
#12 - Giraffe replied on the 11/03/2016 12:33:08 AM
I've no real gripe about the styling or design, per se.
But it seems to be way way way too small.
So, on the one hand, you'll probably hardly notice it when it's done.
But that's the failing of it. It's just a two bed place, as far as I can tell. Well a bedroom and a balcony with a bed on it.
On a site like that, at the bottom of a hill, in an area like this, there should be a much higher density of occupation.
#13 - Malarki replied on the 11/03/2016 9:01:21 AM
Well if there is one thing that Dennistoun has in abundance, it's space - there's the two empty plots on Circus Drive, the soon to collapse Golfhill School, the afore mentioned empty properties, the empty plot next to the garage on the Parade ... And then tbere's the whole Abbatoir plot. Why have density when you can have a nice garden.
#14 - Giraffe replied on the 12/03/2016 1:44:46 PM
You're right, Malrki. Let's just build to a suburban density from now on, all throughout Scotland, regardless of location. Dennistoun, Shetland, Dumfries, Oban... one continuous suburb, with houses with nice gardens.
But seriously, there wouldn't be a Dennistoun as we know it if the tenements (with their higher density massing) were pulled down in the name of modernity like so many other parts of the city have been.
A single one (and a half) bedroom house on a plot that size, on the edge of Glasgow city centre, is a daft use of space.
#15 - James replied on the 12/03/2016 7:15:34 PM
No tenement is being pulled down Giraffe. I am familiar with the tenements of Dennistoun. I am also familiar with the villas of the older part of Dennistoun. I think they sit quite companionably together and the new house sits in this part of the conservation area. High density has a place in the locality and most new builds in the area fit that description. There should be a combination of high density and low density. There is room for both. We must be careful not to lose all green spaces be they public or private. The new build was built to meet the owner's requirements, not yours.
#16 - Anon replied on the 12/03/2016 7:33:30 PM
I am new to the area. What was there before?
#17 - Malarki replied on the 12/03/2016 7:48:13 PM
There was a disused tennis court there anon - it formed part of the grounds of the large house on Broompark Circus that stands behind the new build, which until about 2010 was a council nursery. The council closed the nursery as part of the cuts and it was sold and is currently being brought back into residential use by the new owners. So ironically the new build has actually increased the density of population on the plot by an infinite percentage ... also the conservation area represents the only completed part of Alexander Dennistoun's envisaged residential suburb, so the new build with its gardens being within that area is appropriately low density and it is the tenements which are the aberration to the original plan for Dennistoun ... but hey, why does everything have to stay the same? I think the protests here might have more to do with jealousy than any well founded objections.
#18 - Anon replied on the 12/03/2016 11:36:11 PM
It looks like a 'Grand Designs' type building to me.
#19 - James replied on the 13/03/2016 2:44:07 PM
I hope that some of the future housing in Dennistoun offers something for the growing older population too. Some of the newer flats have lifts and that is good news. We need to see some solutions in the future which offer better access for people with disabilities including provision for the existing older population who may find it increasingly difficult to manage all the stairs in tenemental buildings.
#20 - Giraffe replied on the 16/03/2016 6:27:18 PM
I've never claimed that a tenement was being pulled down, so where that's come from I don't know. Past use of the site shouldn't prevent appropriate use of it today.
Alexander Dennistoun may have envisaged a residential suburb, but things change, and in 2016 Mr Dennistoun isn't in a position to make his vision a reality. Nor was he during his lifetime. The fact that the template set out by (what has turned out to be) the conservation area was ultimately deemed to be unfeasible for the rest of Dennistoun gives us a clue as to how sustainable that original plan was. The poor condition of so many of what were once - to borrow a phrase - grand designs, compared to the enduring popularity and demand for properties at tenement density is also a hint toward what's appropriate around here.
It's true to say that the new build was built to meet the owner's requirements, not mine. In the same way that it'd be built to someone else's requirements, not yours, presumably, if a 30 storey tower were being built there. Neither the long gone Mr Dennistoun or the plot owners should have the final say on what gets built around here.
There's a balance to be struck. And it's nothing to do with jealousy. And there's no reason why a good quality, well designed property, at a sensible density could not be built there, bringing residents in that can collectively better support the local shops and facilities.
And there's a huge difference between a private walled off garden and a public green space. The two are incomparable. And that's not a statement borne out of jealously, either.
I wonder whether it'd be seen as acceptable for someone to buy the crumbling Haghill Primary, knock it down, and build a bungalow just as long as it's got some Grand Designs architectural features?
#21 - Malarki replied on the 16/03/2016 7:30:46 PM
What I find slightly puzzling is that someone who obviously has such extensive architectural credentials, a deeply held concern for Dennistoun's built environment,commmunity and history, a good grounding in urban planning and a wish to preserve the integrity of the conservation area, seems to have overlooked what is a public plannning process which would have allowed them to express their concerns at the appropriate time. The council produces weekly lists, all application are available online where they can be searched for by area and date, DCC reviews many of the applications made in the area and the Conservation Society were aware of the plans, so it seems strange that someone who has such strong feelings would have missed this particular one. Given that all the necessary permissions and processes were gone through, as evidenced by the documentation available online, what is the point in getting so upset now? Unless there is some other reason?
You can reply to the post Building at bottom of Craigpark Drive by completing the form. No registration required. The forum is moderated in order that messages adhere to the editorial integrity of Dennistoun Online. Please read the guidelines before you submit to the forum. If you believe that we have missed a message that contravenes these guidelines then please contact us and we will either edit or remove it.