Beco Building

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

Postby HollowHorn » Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:57 pm

I was never really aware of the Beco building until PG mentioned its possible destruction on a thread sometime last year. I pass it most mornings on the way to the Central & have grown to love it. Tradeston is 90% keech & the remaining 18% is simply beautiful. I see no reason why the new cannot be mixed with the old, why one to the exclusion of the other? I'd a lot of time for Steven P & the ET till now, but jesus....I see the future & the rest of the world wears bifocals, when will they ever learn:
http://www.hiddenglasgow.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=642
User avatar
HollowHorn
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 8925
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:59 pm
Location: Paisley

Postby Socceroo » Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:08 pm

Anyone got a photo of the Beco building? What one is it the red brick one?
User avatar
Socceroo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: Mount Flo, Glasgow

Postby gap74 » Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:47 pm

User avatar
gap74
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:33 am

Postby Schiehallion » Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:24 pm

HollowHorn wrote:Tradeston is 90% keech & the remaining 18% is simply beautiful.


If all of Tradeston is 108% can they no build on that extra 8% bit and leave the Beco building alone?
User avatar
Schiehallion
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:32 pm

Postby Fossil » Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:27 pm

Schiehallion wrote:
HollowHorn wrote:Tradeston is 90% keech & the remaining 18% is simply beautiful.


If all of Tradeston is 108% can they no build on that extra 8% bit and leave the Beco building alone?


::):
Bum tit tit bum tit tit play yer hairy banjo
User avatar
Fossil
-
-
 
Posts: 12310
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Pitt Street

Postby JimT » Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:37 pm

Keep the building and fix it up. It'll add a bit of character to the area instead of the bland looking shacks they are throwing up
JimT
Busy bunny
Busy bunny
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:29 pm

Postby Fat Cat » Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:45 am

Listen, anything that makes Steven Purcell's face look like a well skepled arse is all right by me. He is a silly little individual who would not look out of place in the Tory Government of the 1980s (with all those yuppies ;))

Let's send this non-entity back to where he belongs at the next election.
User avatar
Fat Cat
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:09 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby brickwall » Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:33 am

He looks like one of those snotty nosed oiks that got sand kicked in his face on the playing fields. Wouldn't make the primary 7s patch quilt team.
eh?
User avatar
brickwall
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Thirst pocket

Postby Mori » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:29 pm

Sorry bout the Extra large post, but this was a posted on the SSC/GMA Tradeston thread way back in 2005.

it was felt then that the building was not feasible to save after looking at it from all angles.



Posted by Gweilo 160905
But goodbye Beco building....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just read the planning report and am presently picking my jaw up off the floor. Despite specific objections to this aspect of the application alone from the Glasgow Institute of Architects, the Scottish Civic Trust, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, the New Glasgow Society and Historic Scotland formally stating they can see no justification for it's loss the council have decided that demolishing the Beco building is somehow acceptable as the development would look 'fragmented' with it there. Er what? This is the pertinent part of a rather long report. Read it and laugh at the lengths the council will go to be accomodating. I should have nominated this for a carbuncle!

[quote]As part of forming the block it is proposed to demolish the listed building at 58-60 Kingston Street and replace it with the new flats as part of forming the overall block.

The Beco building is a Category ‘B’ Listed Building of 5-storeys with basement and attic accommodation which fronts onto Kingston Street and Centre street. The building dates from 1878 and was constructed as an original drapers warehouse with two glazed shop units at ground floor.
The Kingston Street and Centre Street elevations are blonde sandstone which have strong ‘punched’ windows both arched and ogee-headed in character. The gable and rear elevations are brick. There are cast iron columns running through the building and there is a central staircase.
Presently the building is used for trade cash and carry retailing at the lower floors with storage areas above. Although there is also an office at first floor level and a flat at the fourth floor. The application indicates that the building is owned by twelve interests. As part of the submission the applicant has submitted three reports relating to the proposed demolition of this building.

The first report was submitted as part of the original listed building application submission and considered the, historic importance of the building, the condition of the building and the potential options for the retention of the building. The report concluded that the building was of no particular architectural merit, was in very poor condition, almost unsafe and a result of this the retention of the building for conversion was not viable. It is also undesirable to retain the building given the wider proposed context for the Tradeston area.

In response to this document Historic Scotland made informal comments on the application, highlighting the importance of the building and given the overall context advised in their view that the preservation and sensitive conversion of the very few listed buildings remaining in Tradeston should be encouraged as part of the wider redevelopment plans for the area. Their comments also reminded the City Council of the advice contained in the Memorandum of Guidance for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (1998).
The applicant’s own report also, however, indicated that “further intrusive structural investigations will determine whether the nature of the potential instability is of an order that the building structure could be retained with major refurbishment within a safe environment or if it is required to demolish the building”. Historic Scotland commented that a comprehensive structural report to augment the above had not been submitted and would be required.
A second report was submitted in January 2005 which examined the planning context, provided an updated structural appraisal and described three further options for retention and including costings of three of these options and further planning policy assessment. The conclusion of this report was that the retention of the Beco is not viable, due to its poor structural condition and would present losses of between £750,000 and £2.5 million which would justify the demolition of the building (refurbish with retail at ground floor residential flats above £750,000 loss, refurbish for commercial £1.65 million loss and façade retention £2.5m).

This report was forwarded to Building Control Services as well as Historic Scotland and a further site inspection was carried out by these parties. Building Control Services were not immediately concerned with the building but to a blocked up fire exit which involved immediate action. Historic Scotland, however, noted that there was an existing use operating in the building. In examining the second report it was concluded that a number of statements were made on the basis of assumptions concerning the building’s condition and some which may be unfounded. In conclusion, the Regional Engineer of Historic Scotland, stated the building still had a lot going for it. The case made for its demolition being not conclusive and further investigation would be required to confirm the exact nature and degree of any structural problems with a definitive cost for rectifying any problem eg which may include new ties to floor on a roof level and in the wall structure.
Alburn Tradeston Limited commissioned a fuller invasive type survey, as far as practical, given the access to the building was problematic, the multi ownership and that the building was not in the applicant’s ownership in terms of survey work which would affect the building’s fabric. The investigation included : south and east elevations with secondary verticality survey to be undertaken to north and west brick elevations, full rot infestation and rising damp survey of the structure (especially timber), bore survey to east elevation to identify any separation which may have taken place and lastly outline survey to basement, ground and first floor to identify extent of any differential vertical settlements to floor surfaces from the movement of the foundations. The resultant report was submitted May 2005 and forwarded to Building Control Services and Historic Scotland.

The only concern of Building Control related to the east chimneyhead and as a result the area of car park below was cordoned off and the owners requested to carry out repairs. Building Control Services advised that if no investment was spent on the maintenance of the building it would deteriorate further and may potentially require careful monitoring. A further meeting was held with Historic Scotland to discuss the report and the overall impact to the Tradeston application.

In the amendments submitted to the application, there is also a diagram of the implication of the Beco building remaining as is within the proposals. This would substantially reduce the area for basement car parking. It would also be necessary in the applicant’s opinion to leave at least six metre gaps between the rear and east gable to the new blocks, due to the structure of the building. This would have implications for the access point to the basement area which would have to be relocated further north and thus reduce the pedestrian priority section of the street as cars would have to penetrate this area more.

In response to the meeting held, Historic Scotland offered further advice in relation to the three listed building applications. With regard to the Beco building the following comments were made “as previously discussed, the demolition of this important ‘B’ Listed Building, which is in daily use, cannot be accepted at this stage. As you are aware, it is Government policy that ‘no worthwhile building should be lost to the environment unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of keeping it, as outlined in Section 2.10 Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (1998). To date, we have not received sufficient justification which would lead us into accepting that the building is beyond repair or incorporation into the wider Tradeston regeneration plans”.

The lack of justification for the removal of the Beco building has also been raised by other objectors and in particular the Scottish Civic Trust, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, Glasgow Institute of Architects and the New Glasgow Society.
QUOTE]

Then it goes on:


Quote:
Criteria B iv also considers the location for new development be appropriate with regard to safeguarding environmental resources which includes listed buildings.

Comment:

The proposals concern three Category ‘B’ Listed Buildings/Structures ie Kingston House, the King George V Bridge and the Beco building. Historic Scotland have accepted the conversion of and external works to the roof of Kingston House and the partial demolition of the balustrade to the Bridge. They state, however, that there is no valid justification for the demolition of the Beco building at 58-60 Kingston Street within the submissions.
The applicant has examined the structure of the building and is adamant that it would not be viable to consider the retention of the building.
The conversion of the building for commercial use was estimated to have a negative cost of £700,000, for residential conversion £1.65 million and a facade retention for residential purposes a loss of £2.5m. These costs have been estimated on assumptions made in terms of the condition of the structure of the building. The complication has been one of gaining access to the building due to the multi ownership interests in different levels of the building and also the carrying out of invasive survey work to a building which is not within the ownership of the applicant. Building Control Services of the City Council have confirmed that their immediate concern related to the lean in the gable and west chimney but otherwise there was no case for any remedial action under emergency legislation. Building Control Services also note some of the damage had occurred in the past but had stabilised or was not particularly secure, however, it would be necessary over time to monitor the state of the building.

The case for the demolition of the building is further undermined by the fact that the building is presently in use as a cash and carry, offices, storage area etc. The reality, however, is that the building is deteriorating over time with little investment being put into it largely due to the fact that it is in multi-ownership. The Council if it were pursuing a ‘listed building’s repair notice’ would also be frustrated by the number of parties involved.
The final argument that has been presented is that the removal of the building could be justified to realise the overall regeneration of this middle block. The architects have considered the ‘do nothing’ scenario ie build the block around the ‘Beco’. In presenting this case, the architects were still of the opinion that the deteriorating structure of the building would prevent over time any new build scheme butting against the building. Instead there would have to be a safe gap of approximately six metres to each of the gable edges. The Beco building’s plot also includes a substantial surface car park area which would not be incorporated into the scheme.

As a result the amount of basement area available for excavation works to provide car parking would substantially be reduced and therefore 100% provision would not be achieved. In addition to this the entrance to the basement car park would be pushed northwards and result in cars penetrating the perceived ‘home zone’ streets which have been derived as part of the overall aims of achieving a higher residential amenity.

The Council is sympathetic to this view, while acknowledging that there has been no justification beyond reasonable doubt provided for the demolition of the listed building on structural grounds, it is desirable that the overall urban grid is re-established and the regeneration of this does not result in a broken urban form. The Beco building stands isolated in context with no relationship to any other architectural form as distinct from the setting of other listed buildings in the Tradeston area which have been successfully converted into residential use.

The City Plan contains a number of policies relevant to the consideration of the proposals. As previously explained planning policy for the Tradeston area has evolved through the Draft City Plan via the adoption of a Local Development Strategy and through the City Council’s conscious aspirations to refocus and revitalise the City’s river corridor which had been in decline since the ship building and quayside industries of the past collapsed. The local development strategy for the Tradeston Area which highlights the regeneration of the twelve street blocks has been further refined with proposals for the first three blocks, as contained in this application and the proposed Glasgow Bridge. Together these will act as the catalyst that will drive development further south to the other nine blocks. The Tradeston Development Strategy which the applicant has also been involved in preparing was presented for information to Development and Regeneration Committee in February 2005.

The City Plan, adopted in 2003 identifies the area of Tradeston as forming part of a mixed development policy principle area.

And so finally:


Quote:
The Memorandum and Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas 1997 has been discussed relative to the comments received from Historic Scotland with regard to the Beco building.

The applications have been the subject of lengthy negotiations between the City Council and Alburns Tradeston Limited with the view of achieving a comprehensive regeneration of the first three blocks of the Tradeston waterfront as well as complementing the City’s own proposed Glasgow Bridge.
Difficulties relating to the traffic management and road network have been resolved. The issues relating to the public realm which will be carried out by the bridge team as part of their proposals but will involve the input of the applicant to resolve the level changes have been ongoing and ultimately details will require to be reserved.

Historic Scotland accepts that works to the King George V Bridge are necessary and that the roof to Kingston House could be altered provided the cornice is not interrupted by unsympathetic overhangs.

The Beco building’s demolition is not accepted by Historic Scotland in terms of the justification submitted with the application. However, it is the Council’s opinion that to achieve the overall comprehensive development of Block 2 without fragmentation its demolition is necessary.

Although comments were received concerning the ‘blandness’ of the blocks, only Blocks 2 and 3 have slightly altered as the architecture and use of materials are conceived as simple and strong in character to act as a backcloth to the iconic bridge structure which will span this section of the river.

The applications will regenerate and revitalise this area of Tradeston and thus contribute to the overall aspirations of the Council to enliven the river corridor as well as act as a catalyst for the further development of the nine blocks south as contained in the Tradeston Development Strategy. In considering all of the above, the applications are recommended for approval subject to conditions.
User avatar
Mori
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 1:05 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby HollowHorn » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:06 pm

Mori wrote:the building was not feasible to save after looking at it from all angles.

Aye, the old ways are the best, especially when used in conjunction with the 'hands on hips & rueful shake of the head' routine. :P


The City Plan contains a number of policies relevant to the consideration of the proposals. As previously explained planning policy for the Tradeston area has evolved through the Draft City Plan via the adoption of a Local Development Strategy and through the City Council’s conscious aspirations to refocus and revitalise the City’s river corridor which had been in decline since the ship building and quayside industries of the past collapsed.

My, the benefits of a University education 8)
User avatar
HollowHorn
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 8925
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:59 pm
Location: Paisley

Postby gap74 » Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:45 pm

What a schocker, the respondants in the comments section of the online story on the Evening Times website is predominately in favour of retaining the building, yet today's letters page only has two missives about it, both pro-demolition....
User avatar
gap74
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:33 am

Postby Pgcc93 » Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:51 pm

gap74 wrote:What a schocker, the respondants in the comments section of the online story on the Evening Times website is predominately in favour of retaining the building, yet today's letters page only has two missives about it, both pro-demolition....


Yeah! I had also noticed that :evil:

Scroll down for comments http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/disp ... _river.php
User avatar
Pgcc93
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 8:12 pm
Location: Hotel Du Vin

Postby gap74 » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:09 pm

Anyone know if The Victorian Society have a remit to cover Scotland? It isn't immediately obvious from their website.

http://www.victorian-society.org.uk
User avatar
gap74
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:33 am

Postby HollowHorn » Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:39 pm

Ohooo, nice:
This truly is rich coming from the paper which criticised the demolition of Partick Station the other week, yet this week they're demanding that an old building be swept away?

This is possibly one of the most uncritical, pro-developer pieces I've read for quite some time, there was no comment from anyone who might be in a position to defend the building. Are they really trying to convince us that this massive project will suddenly be rendered financially unviable just because this one building can't be demolished? To me, the whole threat that this might mean the project won't go ahead smacks of a developer throwing a hissy fit, and shame on Glasgow City Council for siding with them on it - if any of us were still in any doubt whatsoever about the council's attitude to our built heritage, this should finally confirm the worst.

I can't believe that they really think that a totally new, sterile and, frankly, bland development is preferable to one which incorporates older structures which have a bit of character and history behind them. I'm no architect or structural engineer, but the building looks both solid and easily adaptable to me. They knew a B-listed building was there when they undertook the plans, why did they just presume that they would be allowed to flatten it instead of designing a scheme that incorporated it from the start? Wouldn't be because there's a larger profit to be made in a newbuild, would it, or am I being cynical in thinking that developers might be greedy sods?

Good on HS for insisting it stays too, had demolition been permitted, then it really would just pose the question of why bother to list buildings at all?
User avatar
HollowHorn
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 8925
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:59 pm
Location: Paisley

Postby gap74 » Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:00 pm

Er, yeah, that was me, afraid I lazily cut and pasted my own rant from the previous page of this thread!
User avatar
gap74
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:33 am

PreviousNext

Return to Glasgow Chat (Coffee Lounge)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests

cron