How should the building next to Glasgow Central station be rebuilt?

[Bletchleyite]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fire-at-glasgow-central-08-03-26.299500/page-8#post-7706818

Should it be rebuilt exactly as it was or a new glass fronted building?

I think a sensitively designed modern stone and glass building would fit well, personally. There are plenty of examples in Edinburgh but also some others in Glasgow.

 

[mmh]

I think I'd like to see a public square. Obviously won't happen. The only thing that'll be guaranteed is an eyesore of hoardings for (hopefully few) years.

 

[TrainTraveler]

I would hope that the opportunity was taken to improve the station surroundings and access as part of the rebuild.

Clearly something that meets modern fire standards will be a priority.

I was an occasional user of Glasgow Central a while back and never liked the area round the station much.

That’s often the case around major terminals as they “overfill” their area but something good may come of this.

 

[68000]

The building was not owned by the railway so it will be up to the owner / developer to come up with their ideas which no doubt will involve some sort of student accommodation. This is where the council planning should come in with what is acceptable / desirable.

Does anyone know who owns the site? Maybe Network Rail will purchase it but they will have little money to buy it.

 

[Ianigsy]

From an aesthetic point of view, the ideal would be to continue the roofline of the bottom half of Union Street but have the Gordon Street frontage set back slightly so it isn’t forward of the main station entrance.

It seems not to be the done thing among architects and planners to rebuild heritage buildings as they were but to modern standards and with modern materials.

 

[WTT Gremlin]

This will mostly come down to whether or not the listing (Grade B) gets enforced. Listing does not mean that no changes can ever be made, it just massively raises the bar for changes.

If it is enforced then the elements cited in the listing (approximately the frontage above ground floor and roof) will be reconstructed as a façade only what would likely be a steel and breeze block structure. A good argument could be made to replace things like wooden sash windows for alternative materials to minimise flammability given the proven wider impact of fire.

If it is not enforced then it will be shaped by what future use is decided by relevant owners/local government.

Regarding ideas such as creating a new grand gateway entrance for Central, this would have to work in conjunction with the different separate listing covering the station, at least parts of which are listed to Grade A.

 

[Topological]

The logical solution would involve a taller building with the ground floors opened out to ease accessibility to the station / widen the pavement.

The wall of the surviving building was not exactly photogenic, having been covered with a large advert. There are no windows to obscure if going tall.

You could possibly do something with a well styled facade wall, but likely the result would just look cheap. Better to go modern imho.

 

[MarkyT]

The site should be safeguarded for the southern entrance and vertical circulation to a new underground Crossrail station. Long platforms would burrow north from the bottom of the escalators, beneath the city streets, to a second entrance near Queen Street station. Tracks would join up to existing routes north and south of the city.

 

[WTT Gremlin]

The logical solution would involve a taller building with the ground floors opened out to ease accessibility to the station / widen the pavement.

The wall of the surviving building was not exactly photogenic, having been covered with a large advert. There are no windows to obscure if going tall.

You could possibly do something with a well styled facade wall, but likely the result would just look cheap. Better to go modern imho.

May I highlight the point regarding whether the listing is enforced. If it is then the facade will be recreated 'as was'.

The site should be safeguarded for the southern entrance and vertical circulation to a new underground Crossrail station. Long platforms would burrow north from the bottom of the escalators, beneath the city streets, to a second entrance near Queen Street station. Tracks would join up to existing routes north and south of the city.

This would be contingent on the site being purchased from the current owners, and poses the question of what happens with said empty plot until a hypothetical Glasgow Crossrail comes to fruition?

 

[bramling]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fire-at-glasgow-central-08-03-26.299500/page-8#post-7706818



I think a sensitively designed modern stone and glass building would fit well, personally. There are plenty of examples in Edinburgh but also some others in Glasgow.

I’d be tempted to say rebuild as close to what it was as possible, at least in terms of the facade. Though I can see no reason why the use of the building couldn’t change, for example if there was a change to make use of the space for the station.

 

[WTT Gremlin]

I’d be tempted to say rebuild as close to what it was as possible, at least in terms of the facade. Though I can see no reason why the use of the building couldn’t change, for example if there was a change to make use of the space for the station.

The challenge with use for the station is Central Stations separate Grade A listing.

 

[styles]

Presumably it's up to the landowners, whoever they are.

I'm not sure how listed status affects things but given the remains are being demolished, I'd assume a lot of it becomes irrelevant. The LA has already approved demolition, so I don't think they're signalling that they'll try and enforce much to do with the listing status. It'll be a pile of rubble.

Unless someone wants to invest a monumental amount of money into trying to recreate the old architecture, I think they'd be best off just making it an open space.

 

[D6130]

Following the Grosvenor Hotel fire - one of three Scottish hotels that burned down on the same night during the 1977 firemen's strike - it was rebuilt as a modern building with a wonderful moulded fibreglass replica of the original facade stuck on the front. If you take a walk Westwards along Great Western Road from the top of Byres Road, its impossible to see the join with the rest of the original 19th century Grosvenor Terrace. Perhaps something similar may be possible with the new Union Corner building?

 

[WTT Gremlin]

Presumably it's up to the landowners, whoever they are.

I'm not sure how listed status affects things but given the remains are being demolished, I'd assume a lot of it becomes irrelevant. The LA has already approved demolition, so I don't think they're signalling that they'll try and enforce much to do with the listing status. It'll be a pile of rubble.

Unless someone wants to invest a monumental amount of money into trying to recreate the old architecture, I think they'd be best off just making it an open space.

The fact that what is left is being removed is irrelevant re whether the listed status applies.

It would only be what is in the Listing that would have to be reconstructed, and it isn’t a matter of what someone might want to do. Though dealing with nuances of English listing examples such as The Crooked House demonstrate that.

 

[styles]

The fact that what is left is being removed is irrelevant re whether the listed status applies.

It would only be what is in the Listing that would have to be reconstructed, and it isn’t a matter of what someone might want to do. Though dealing with nuances of English listing examples such as The Crooked House demonstrate that.

Yes but the enforcement of listing requirements is up to the LA and recommendation to the Scottish government (via HES).

It would be pretty extraordinary, unless the owner of the building was found to be at major faults, to mandate that they reconstruct it as it was. And in any case they'd probably be better off just refusing and going through sequestration than paying to rebuild it.

I can't see it happening.

 

[David M]

Forget the fact that the demolished building was listed and start with a totally clean sheet.
Use the opportunity that's been given to create something truly transformative for Central Station and fit for the 21st century.
A brand new angled entrance with a front sited on the demolished corner not dissimilar to Dutch stations.
Inside? Shops, restaurants, bars, ticket offices - the world's your oyster.
Retain the current main entrance but redesign the interior.
Once in a lifetime chance.

 

[mmh]

Forget the fact that the demolished building was listed and start with a totally clean sheet.
Use the opportunity that's been given to create something truly transformative for Central Station and fit for the 21st century.
A brand new angled entrance with a front sited on the demolished corner not dissimilar to Dutch stations.
Inside? Shops, restaurants, bars, ticket offices - the world's your oyster.
Retain the current main entrance but redesign the interior.
Once in a lifetime chance.

The interior is what gives it its character, and much of it is listed.

Let's have shops, restaurants and bars on Union Street and fix there, rather than fix inside which isn't broken.

 

[The exile]

It seems not to be the done thing among architects and planners to rebuild heritage buildings as they were but to modern standards and with modern materials.

Not in this country anyway - for an indication of how it can be done, have a look at a photo of the surroundings of Dresden’s Frauenkirche - depending on the angle of the shot, not one of those buildings was standing 25 years ago.

 

[Topological]

See what is happening with the Hotspur Press redevelopment in Manchester as an example of the UK following a reconstruction approach.

However, people need to be realistic. There is not a magic money tree that makes buildings viable. Central Manchester and 30+ stories mean you can just about afford a facade that resembles what stood before (they had already designed the building around keeping the original before the fire). Whether Glasgow has a market that supports such additional expenditure is one for the authorities to weigh up.

One thing which should be clear is that having development of sites like this is better than leaving them derelict because no developer will take on the risk of building.

BBC Article on Hotspur Press

The remnants of a former mill in Manchester city centre that was devastated in a fire last year is set to be demolished and replaced with a high-rise block of student flats.

The 1801-built Hotspur Press on Cambridge Street set ablaze in June and was left as what the firm planning to develop the site described as "little more than a shell".

Developer Manner had wanted to retain parts of the original building under plans for the 36-storey student accommodation block.

Planners on Manchester City Council have now approved the developer's new plans which would see new facade built to look like the former mill, alongside the new flats.

 

[RyRailFan91]

I think the most likley and cost affective is a kind of restoration called Facade Retention

It is where a listed or historical building and or structure after a fire is re-creating the exterior while placing a modern structure behind a modern interior. With or without a layer out cosmetic historical appearance inside. Due to modern safety regulation laws such as here in Palace Westminster legislation and deviation governments of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately with all the legal framework. This will likely be lengthy possible between five or years after approval from Glasgow City Council.
The Crown Dependencies Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Jersey Bailiwick of Guernsey and the British Overseas Terrorties have similar legislation by their own respective British governments too. I hate to see any historical buildings or structures damaged anywhere. This similar building reconstruction method has been used on a Belfast's Bank buildings with a beautiful sensitive replica behind an old skin so to speak. and is currently being used on Glasgow's Art School thankfully and it is now finally about time Exeter's Royal Clarence which is expected to be fully restored by Christmas 2027.

Legislation by Nation.

• England: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
• Scotland: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.
• Northern Ireland: Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.
• Wales: Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023.
  Legislation.gov.uk +5

 

[MarkyT]

I think the most likley and cost affective is a kind of restoration called Facade Retention

It is where a listed or historical building and or structure after a fire is re-creating the exterior while placing a modern structure behind a modern interior. With or without a layer out cosmetic historical appearance inside. Due to modern safety regulation laws such as here in Palace Westminster legislation and deviation governments of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately with all the legal framework. This will likely be lengthy possible between five or years after approval from Glasgow City Council.
The Crown Dependencies Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Jersey Bailiwick of Guernsey and the British Overseas Terrorties have similar legislation by their own respective British governments too. I hate to see any historical buildings or structures damaged anywhere. This similar building reconstruction method has been used on a Belfast's Bank buildings with a beautiful sensitive replica behind an old skin so to speak. and is currently being used on Glasgow's Art School thankfully and it is now finally about time Exeter's Royal Clarence which is expected to be fully restored by Christmas 2027.

Legislation by Nation.

• England: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
• Scotland: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.
• Northern Ireland: Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.
• Wales: Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023.
  View attachment 203352Legislation.gov.uk +5

I think retention of at least some of the original fabric is essential. If, as suggested for Hotspur, a replica facade is constructed, there is a risk future planning authorities may not recognise any historical value in such a 'pastiche' of entirely new materials. The Victorian style new elements of the 1980s redevelopment of Liverpool Street station, while carefully designed to harmonise with the remaining historic parts of the GER station, have no heritage protection today in considering the latest major scheme's plan for their removal.

 

[RyRailFan91]

Agreed! and yes I forgotten to had preserving historical fabric where feasible, Yes just like Hotspur Press in Manchester I’m genuinely saddened by the demolition of the 175-year-old Forsyth House on the corner of Union and Gordon Street. It’s a massive blow to Glasgow’s Victorian soul. What’s most frustrating is that it seems to have been pulled down without a proper survey to see what could actually be saved or salvaged first.
We should be fighting to preserve historical fabric wherever feasible. I can't help but think of Northfield Manor House (the former Cadbury home in Birmingham). After that devastating fire in 2014, it was practically demolished just like Forsyth House. However, because there was a will to save it, a near-exact replica now stands on the original footprint as of 2021.

If Northfield can be brought back, why can’t we demand the same for Forsyth House?
I want to see any surviving materials from the demolition reused and incorporated into whatever comes next. It would be a fitting tribute to this beautiful Victorian landmark if we could see a full restoration using those original pieces. Glasgow just isn't Glasgow without these historic corners.
Does anyone know if there are plans to salvage the reclaimed bricks etc, or are we just watching our history be carted off to a landfill? It would mean so much to see Forsyth House restored to its original footprint. I’d love for future generations of visitors to experience that iconic Victorian architecture rather than just seeing a gap or some awful modern build that sticks out like giant lemon in a green field. Let’s make sure this isn’t a permanent loss. But this isn't just about Glasgow; we need a radical shift in how we protect our heritage across every centimetre of the UK. We cannot continue to treat 175-year-old landmarks as disposable. From We must safeguard our shared heritage, from Northern Irish towns to villages and cities everywhere in Scotland, Wales, and England. We need 'demolition as a last resort' to be the law, not just a suggestion. Our history shouldn't be a choice between a gap in the street or a modern eyesore—it should be protected as an irreplaceable national asset.

 

[The exile]

Agreed! and yes I forgotten to had preserving historical fabric where feasible, Yes just like Hotspur Press in Manchester I’m genuinely saddened by the demolition of the 175-year-old Forsyth House on the corner of Union and Gordon Street. It’s a massive blow to Glasgow’s Victorian soul. What’s most frustrating is that it seems to have been pulled down without a proper survey to see what could actually be saved or salvaged first.
We should be fighting to preserve historical fabric wherever feasible. I can't help but think of Northfield Manor House (the former Cadbury home in Birmingham). After that devastating fire in 2014, it was practically demolished just like Forsyth House. However, because there was a will to save it, a near-exact replica now stands on the original footprint as of 2021.

If Northfield can be brought back, why can’t we demand the same for Forsyth House?
I want to see any surviving materials from the demolition reused and incorporated into whatever comes next. It would be a fitting tribute to this beautiful Victorian landmark if we could see a full restoration using those original pieces. Glasgow just isn't Glasgow without these historic corners.
Does anyone know if there are plans to salvage the reclaimed bricks etc, or are we just watching our history be carted off to a landfill? It would mean so much to see Forsyth House restored to its original footprint. I’d love for future generations of visitors to experience that iconic Victorian architecture rather than just seeing a gap or some awful modern build that sticks out like giant lemon in a green field. Let’s make sure this isn’t a permanent loss. But this isn't just about Glasgow; we need a radical shift in how we protect our heritage across every centimetre of the UK. We cannot continue to treat 175-year-old landmarks as disposable. From We must safeguard our shared heritage, from Northern Irish towns to villages and cities everywhere in Scotland, Wales, and England. We need 'demolition as a last resort' to be the law, not just a suggestion. Our history shouldn't be a choice between a gap in the street or a modern eyesore—it should be protected as an irreplaceable national asset.

It’s a fine balance as we also can’t commit to permanently living in a museum. It’s very easy to want to preserve everything in aspic just as we remember it from our childhood (or whenever), forgetting that our treasured historic building was once an “ugly modern monstrosity”. I’m sure that at one time people were moaning about “those horrible new buildings ruining the view” - buildings such as Charlotte Square in Edinburgh or the Royal Crescent in Bath. No - I’m not proposing demolition of either. I also think that in the case of destruction by fire (and other accidents) it would be no bad thing to require complete reinstatement- if only to discourage other @accidents”. (This is no comment on the cause of this or any other particular fire). I would also speed up the process of forfeiture of derelict properties (such as the Station Hotel in Ayr)