Walk down Bath Street and you will see that the office block that used to house the NHS headquarters in Glasgow is being knocked down. Barely 30 years old, this building is now deemed unsuitable for further use, and is to be replaced by student accommodation. Subsequent NHS headquarters, Dalian House, has lain empty for more than 10 years, apparently undesirable and yet another short-lived property development. Meanwhile, there are new office and deluxe housing developments springing up all along the Clyde; approach Glasgow from the South to a forest of cranes. Even more recently is the news that the Buchanan Galleries are going to be replaced by a multi-million pound, 10 year project for shopping, eating, socialising, living and working. All the while, large high street shops are lying empty and in unsightly disrepair.
Further afield, there is a battle going on by residents to preserve a substantial housing development in Wyndford, Maryhill, much of it high rise and low rent. Writing for Architects Journal and reprinted in Bella Caledonia, architect Malcolm Fraser describes the plan to demolish 600 social homes in the name of regeneration. This involves a cycle of waste and rebuild which displaces current occupants in favour of attracting a more affluent population into the area.
What these few examples have in common is a set of contradictions in Glasgow, sponsored by both the City Council and national Government as well as commerce, which highlight the mismatch between rhetoric and reality. These relate to both the environmental and the social justice claims that have been made. We have raised our concerns previously about the extent of greenwashing that is currently going on in the city. The extent of demolition and the new buildings that are proliferating, mostly in the name of profit, add considerably to the carbon load that we are apparently committed to reducing. Each of the stages of manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance, and disposal of building materials all embody carbon. This constitutes a considerable part of the greenhouse gases that the city contributes, and yet which do not seem to be taken into account as part of environmental policy making. We also know that there is inadequate, affordable housing for people who need it, and that homelessness is rising.
Whilst some people may view the emergence of new offices, riverside apartments, and shopping precincts, as a sign of a vibrant city that is improving itself, there are serious questions that have to be asked. When will the new tranche of shiny buildings be considered obsolete, only for the cycle to be perpetuated again? Who has this constant churn of building, demolishing, adding to landfill, building actually benefited? Who is allowing the planning decisions for these initiatives, and why? Why are the many large and small buildings in the city centre and beyond not being retrofitted? What do the people of Glasgow think about the way the city is being shaped?
Please let us have your thoughts and ideas about any of the points made in this blog and more specifically about:
– The form that the city should take,
– How we should best use the buildings that we already have
– How do we ensure that decisions about demolition and building are undertaken as democratically and in as environmentally friendly way as possible
Further reading:
BBC: Glasgow Concert Hall steps gone in new Buchanan Galleries plan
Bella Caledonia: High-rise demolition that turns Glasgow’s COP26 on its head
It seems that local tenants support the regeneration in Wyndford: https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/glasgow-landlord-behind-high-rise-26058534
Some tenants have expressed their approval of the demolition of the blocks of flats in Wyndford, and it is correct that they are in need of improvement, with dampness only one of the problems. The tenants quoted in the article have been carefully selected, and they do not represent the views of the majority and are certainly in direct contrast to those of the Wyndford Tenants Association. I attended the Association meeting at which architect Malcolm Fraser, a Board Member of Common Weal, gave a damning indictment of the Wheatley plans. There has, been a clear lack of consultation with the tenants, and I am not sure what percentage of the existing accommodation 250 upgraded social housing flats would be, how many tenants would lose their homes permanently, where retained tenants would be re-housed while the work was taking place, what percentage of the new accommodation would be for sale or rent-to-buy and how the John Wheatley Foundation, formerly Glasgow Housing Association, can justify reducing substantially the number of its social housing tenants other than as a money-grabbing venture. Housing Associations are supposed to be part of the third sector with governing documentation containing a clear purpose of supporting their tenants, not making them homeless. The move is largely a gentrification process where, as usual, those who will suffer will be those most incapable of supporting themselves.
Some tenants have expressed their approval of the demolition of the blocks of flats in Wyndford, and it is correct that they are in need of improvement, with dampness only one of the problems. The tenants quoted in the article have been carefully selected, and they do not represent the views of the majority and are certainly in direct contrast to those of the Wyndford Tenants Association. I attended the Association meeting at which architect Malcolm Fraser, a Board Member of Common Weal, gave a damning indictment of the Wheatley plans. There has, been a clear lack of consultation with the tenants, and I am not sure what percentage of the existing accommodation 250 upgraded social housing flats would be, how many tenants would lose their homes permanently, where retained tenants would be re-housed while the work was taking place, what percentage of the new accommodation would be for sale or rent-to-buy and how the John Wheatley Foundation, formerly Glasgow Housing Association, can justify reducing substantially the number of its social housing tenants other than as a money-grabbing venture. Housing Associations are supposed to be part of the third sector with governing documentation containing a clear purpose of supporting their tenants, not making them homeless. The move is largely a gentrification process where, as usual, those who will suffer will be those most incapable of supporting themselves. The irony in all this is that the Wheatley Foundation is a charitable trust which was set up to support vulnerable and disadvantaged people. Yet it is turfing many of those disadvantaged and vulnerable people out of their homes.
The survey of tenants was apparently very superficial and ended with a conclusion that there was probably a majority in favour. Meanwhile the cost of refurbishment was equivalent to demolition. A meeting I went earlier in the year indicated a strong opposition to demolition and they saw all this as gentrification, with new rents for the new building double those currently charged for existing flats.
John Rogers