GLASGOW is certainly not flourishing as far as its diminishing architectural heritage is concerned (Glasgow's urban decay risks squandering 30 years of progress; August 6) but in one respect at least it steals a march on its east coast rival.
The Mitchell Library has had several extensions since it was built on its present site in 1911 – indeed by 1981 it was believed to be the largest local reference library in Europe. Contrast this approach with that of Edinburgh, the world's first Unesco City of Literature, where the city council has been both neglecting and asset stripping its once-great Carnegie library, the Central Library, selling off adjacent buildings including the children’s and music annexes, and disposing of common good land long reserved for the library's expansion for a Virgin hotel development on a hopelessly cramped site which will engulf the original 1890 A listed building in gloom. Some even suspect there are moves afoot to dispose of the Carnegie building altogether.
The Publisher's Association recently announced that 2017 was a record-breaking year for UK book sales, but for Edinburgh the fact that books are now “downloadable” means that library assets can be pillaged and sold off to build yet another oversized hotel for his Old Town theme park. For good measure, a report from the council's own environmental health officers that consent be refused because another high building on the Cowgate would only exacerbate the decline in air quality which already breaches WHO standards was studiously ignored.
Edinburgh gained its City of Literature status on the back of ambitious proposals to develop the library and its adjacent land as a “literary hub” – proposals which have since been junked, rather suggesting that Unesco's award was gained on the basis of a false prospectus.
We should of course take pride in the fact that the world's first City of Literature is Scottish, but given Edinburgh's abysmal record and Glasgow's manifest appreciation of the written word, could it possibly be that the wrong city was selected?
David J Black,
62 Montpelier Park, Edinburgh.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel