Glasgow Civic Forum has followed the saga of the George Square redevelopment with interest, and in February came together with representatives of the Strathclyde Group of the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland to discuss the efforts to regenerate the square thus far, and the role groups like ourselves could take in moving the project forward.
The lack of proper consultation has been frustrating for many who care about Glasgow's built heritage. Despite Gordon Matheson's assertions that the most recent volte face is based on the will of the people, the public have still had no formal opportunity to express what they want and need from the square. The forum has been trying to engage the council on the redevelopment plans since November 2012 with little success – a missed opportunity for an open and constructive discussion with volunteers and professionals with expertise, enthusiasm and commitment.
The rushed process prevented the council from producing the supporting evidence that it would expect of any private developer. The council's own Conservation Area Appraisal states that a conservation plan should be drawn up for the square. This has not been carried out to date, and should be the basis of any proposals. This should be followed by a proper design brief, setting out what is needed in the square. Broad wording such as "celebrate the creativity of the city and its people" are motivational words and not criteria for a brief. Without a proper brief or the background documents to support the council's aspirations, and so little public consultation, the design competition was doomed to failure.
The forum feels strongly that the square should work for the people of Glasgow and in the context of Glasgow, while also being welcoming to visitors and suitable for appropriate events, but we cannot accept that commercial imperatives should define the square, as they seem to at present. Too often when large events are being held, such as the Olympic Torch Relay and the Christmas lights, the streets around the square become a maze of security fencing, making pedestrian and traffic movement difficult. Events should fit the space and not hijack this central point in the city.
There seems to be considerable public support for retaining the statues and it has been suggested the revised facelift will now allow all of the statues to remain in the square. The forum would suggest any changes to the locations of the statues should be properly consulted on, developed and evidenced, rather than being imposed without discussion.
Similarly, the reintroduction of greenspace is felt to be essential, but the nature of this space and how people want to be able to use it has not been examined in detail. It is clear if the existing traffic arrangements are to remain, at least for the time being, additional greenspace and tree planting would assist in limiting the impact of traffic noise and pollution, and would help to solve that oft-repeated criticism that the square is really one big traffic island.
The forum and the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland recognise the need for improvements to the square, and welcome the council's commitment to making those improvements. We feel the people who live and work in the city should have an opportunity to have their say on the future of the square through a full and proper consultation process. And we believe that for George Square to be the vibrant, civic, urban space the city council aspires to, this process of genuine, open and transparent dialogue must happen.
Laura Moodie,
Chairwoman, Glasgow Civic Forum,
42 Miller Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article