Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Architect defends design of 17-storey Haymarket hotel

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 May 2009
AN AWARD-WINNING architect has defended his designs for a controversial 17-storey hotel in Haymarket, saying it would be a significant building which would become famous worldwide.
At the start of a public inquiry into the proposed £200 million development on the former Morrison Street goods yard, which got under way yesterday, Richard Murphy said he hoped the hotel would act as an iconic gateway into Edinburgh's world heritag
e site.

And he compared the designs, and the reaction of the public to them, as similar to the Balmoral and Caledonian Hotels, both of which attracted significant criticism when they were built, but which are now world famous and Grade A-listed.

The proposals have come under scrutiny because of the height of the building, which would make it an unmissable addition to Edinburgh's historic skyline.

The plans had originally been for a 12-storey hotel, and Mr Murphy, whose Edinburgh practice has drawn up the designs for the controversial hotel, said the changes had happened for a variety of reasons, and insisted the designs were better now.

He said: "I believe the building works far better now that it is taller."

Asked about the 17 floors of the hotel, Mr Murphy said there were actually 19, with two floors underground, then three public floors including the foyer, cafe and dining area.

John Campbell QC, representing heritage watchdogs the Cockburn Association, asked why Mr Murphy believed the height of this hotel was acceptable, given the effect it would have on the city's historic skyline.

"Height is a hot topic in Edinburgh," the architect replied. "Usually there is a requirement to fit within the skyline, but very occasionally the opportunity comes along to develop a very significant building which you want to break through. It has a charge that it should break through the horizon.

"This is a very important site. It is the entrance to the World Heritage site, and this building can act as a marker to that."

Mr Murphy also insisted that, while modern, the building would become "historic", and said heritage groups had to realise there was a need to create bold new buildings which would stand the test of time.

"Historic Scotland have no sense of history, as all of the buildings they now support and preserve would never have been given their approval at the planning stage," he said. "That is the conundrum we face."

Mr Campbell also asked the architect if he thought the Balmoral – originally known as the North British Hotel – was a good piece of architecture, to which Mr Murphy replied: "Not really, no. But I'm sure the people of Edinburgh are nostalgic about it. If you tried to knock it down there would be an uproar, no doubt similar to the uproar there was when they originally tried to build it."

The inquiry, before Scottish Government reporter Dannie Onn, is due to hear evidence until 5 June.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 May 2009 9:46 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh planning issues
 
1

Buttress,

26/05/2009 11:29:36
Well, for comments on this read:

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Hotel-architect-I-make-no.5300766.jp#4061582

Significant and famous worldwide? He's barking. It's a dog. Heritage groups realise that.

If the WHS needs a 'marker' it needs something better than this. Man's ego is incredible.



2

Buttress,

26/05/2009 11:34:29
BTW - the initial reaction to the Balmoral was becasue of the height of the clock tower, which it was felt would intrude on views of the castle. So the height was reduced. Take note Tiger.

Note also, however, that it was a tower of some public benefit, on a railway hotel, built in the days when watches were not universal and trains ran to a timetable which didn't wait for latecomers.

3

alfonsa pedrosa,

embra 26/05/2009 12:13:00
Sounds very good,maybe a bar on every floor,lovely.
4

Buttress,

26/05/2009 12:20:52
Of course iconic is a meaningless word here.

And it doesn't matter what he claims, he's only one witness in a public planning inquiry. There is much more to come.
5

Buttress,

26/05/2009 12:26:41
Inquiry:-

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212606/0079309.pdf
6

scaredoftruth,

edinburgh 26/05/2009 12:27:46
I would interested to know the demographic of those in favour and those against this building.

I accept that Edinburgh's greatest asset is it's sense of history. However the problem architects face is that it is also a great deterant to modernisation and change.

I for one am in favour of this development. Haymarket and Gorgie need drastic investment and given the current state of the economy, the fact that this could still go ahead, and the jobs it would create, is tremendous for the city
7

Buttress,

26/05/2009 12:31:23
Read the report:-

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212606/0079309.pdf

Thinking this would be 'tremendous' fo the city isn't a universal view. Thankfully.
8

,

26/05/2009 12:59:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

just-whatever-eh,

Parsonage Row 26/05/2009 13:16:56
With a proliferation of hotels in the city or proposed to be built, do they not think it would be difficult to fully book a 17-storey hotel on a regular basis.

Should they not be built to meet demand.
10

Bill MacD,

26/05/2009 13:30:40
This is a typical ego-driven project by an architect who cares infinitely more for his own status than the people who will have to live with his 'creative vision'. There is zero sensitivity to its site or context. There is no reference whatsoever to the fabulous history amongst which it will sit. It's pure arrogance from an architect who, sadly typically for his profession, cares only for the views of his professional peers, and not one bit for those of the population at large.

But it's the planning department who shoulders most of the blame, for being so in thrall to these awful ego merchants. It's THEIR job to stand up for us. Instead they bow down to the BS these selfish developers shovel onto them. Sack them now, while we still have the remnants of a city to be proud of.
11

Jams,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 13:31:05
I just wonder what the "award winning" wunderkind would say if this design belonged to someone else and had been pursued in preference to a scheme of his own design.

Has he changed his name by deed poll? It seems his name cannot be used without the title any more. Mind you I suppose "Richard Award-Winning Murphy" sounds better than "Richard Vain-Egotist Murphy".
12

,

26/05/2009 13:32:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Buttress,

26/05/2009 13:41:21
9 No, I'm not at all well meaning. Nor do I care for being patronised as 'well meaning' by someone who has a waffly touchy feely view that all development must be good.

But clearly I am more in touch with what is happening here with the inquiry than you. Think about it.



14

Buttress,

26/05/2009 13:44:48
11 - yes, totally agree. And it is about more than just this site alone. Anyone who hasn't appreciated that needs to do a certain amount of research before commenting about how good it will be.

12 - well, all architects have to be 'award winning'. That's why there are so many awards where architectts award each other awards, so they can say they are award winning.

15

Statsman,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 13:45:39
He sounds like a moron. I suppose it was 'bold' to build the tower blocks in Sighthill and Oxgangs?

I think by 'bold' he means, pile them high and make a bigger profit for the developer. I don't see the people of Edinburgh demanding the kind of talentless architecture he is providing. Frankly, a six year old could do better.
16

NYC Hibee,

New York City 26/05/2009 13:47:13
No.7
I would also like to see what most of the citizens of Edinburgh think about the city's development and not just what the Cockburn Society or the WHF want to force upon us.
I've just returned from Moscow and St. Petersburg. Even they are building modern dynamic buildings and taking their cities forward as opposed to Edinburgh's reverse direction.
17

Buttress,

26/05/2009 13:57:03
Yes, and really bad it is too in Moscow and St Petersburg. But possibly that's what you want. Edinburgh is really vereysspecial why not keep it that way? In Moscow demolition of historic buildings is happening all over, and its idea of conservation is to demolish and build in crude replica. (see MAPS website).

Gazprom Tower for Edinburgh then? Really?

Well you had your chance to have your say when the nation's and the city's planning policies were up for consultation, and when this development was put out for public consultation.

Why does Edinburgh need to join this mad race for high and poor? Why not cherish it for what it is?



18

,

26/05/2009 14:01:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

NYC Hibee,

New York City 26/05/2009 14:04:14
Yes, we should cherish Haymarket and preserve its beauty at all costs.

What makes Edinburgh so superior anyway?
I've visited many world capitals with much more history and beauty than Edinburgh. These thriving cities are also forward thinking in their architecture as opposed to the poo pooers we have to contend with.
20

,

26/05/2009 14:06:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

Leila,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 14:18:07
#21 and other posts: "Susna Bile" is a new one today, only interested in this and the similar story on the Scotsman site. RM himself maybe?
22

Buttress,

26/05/2009 14:20:59
Ah well, the 'let's ruin Edinburgh because we think it's a good idea' brigade is out in force.

If you don't think it is special, that's sad, but there you go.

21 - I think the Old Town is still rather special, not a lot to do with drinking.


Do some resercah and consider why someone like Herb Stovel is coming to the city and the inquiry to say why this is a bad development. Or move ;-)

23

Buttress,

26/05/2009 14:23:20
Leila, the paucity of sophisticated argument and the banalities surely couldn't be coming from the Great Man, could they?

Or even one of his hired hands in his office? You know the ones who wrote and supported his house development?
24

Buttress,

26/05/2009 14:26:42
"And people like you put the dampeners on it and would rather see a parking space sit there surrdounded by social deprivation rather than move forward, or move at all.

I'm not buying your conservative garbage any longer. It has become a miserable little hole of a city stuck in the past."

This is laughable rubbish, do desist dear.
25

The Ayrshire Bard,

26/05/2009 14:30:50
#19 I agree with you that Edinburgh isn't too wonderful away from the Old and New town. I remember a lot of ugly factories with smoke belching out of their enormous chimneys all over the city. Nobody complained about them as they provided employment. I worked for a while in both New Street and Jeffrey Street, neither of which were famed for their architectular beauty. In fact the government offices in Jeffrey Street were an eyesore. Some would have us still in gas lit tenements rather than move into a modern world.
26

Buttress,

26/05/2009 14:35:32
Rubbish.
27

Leila,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 14:35:33
#24: Yes indeed. The Planning Department knew about it, but did nothing.
28

Foo,

26/05/2009 14:38:18
Buttress, I have to say, I totally disagree with you.

For all your negative comments regarding future developments (and you have made many), I've never seen a suggestion as to what you think may be better suited. Is it your desire to preserve Edinburgh exactly as it is?

29

Buttress,

26/05/2009 14:39:44
As for 'gas lit tenements', read this:-

http://www.changeworks.org.uk/content.php?linkid=424

There are ways of moving into a modern world which respects the best of the past.
30

NYC Hibee,

New York City 26/05/2009 14:40:43
No.22 and 24
Oh dear, afraid of opposing opinions now are we?
Sad comments indeed

Maybe, just maybe, everyone does not agree with your archaic viewpoint!
31

Buttress,

26/05/2009 14:43:58
29 No, that isn't possible is it? But there's not a lot of great stuff happening with new developments. This one is particularly bad. It's totally wrong for where it is planned.

Possibly better planning briefs, not drawn up by the developer, allied to the council taking heed of its own policies, might help, international architecture competitions with clear briefs, and less of the Edinburgh architectural circle would help. Sadly, what happens is developer led, and they are only interested in the profits, not much else.
32

Buttress,

26/05/2009 14:45:21
No, I'm only interested in informed opinions, not the same rehashed tired old ones, which are simply banal.
33

Buttress,

26/05/2009 14:49:06
As for archaic - is it archaic to want to see the best of the past sensitively preserved, and adapted for the future where needed

http://www.changeworks.org.uk/content.php?linkid=424

with high quality new build which has some connection with where it is to be built? Or do we just stand and gape at every tacky gewgaw that an egotistical architect wants to throw up, with the same old 'Allan Murray 'Clatongate or Edinburgh must die' arguments trotted out by the unsophisticated?


34

Leila,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 14:56:36
#31: It's a fact that SIX of Richard Murphy's employees submitted letters to Planning in support of his application to build a house at Hart Street. Of course they used their home addresses, but Planning knew about it.

35

Foo,

26/05/2009 14:58:25
Yeah OK Leila, but just to let you know; Susna Bile fae Blaikbrun = Mario.
36

Buttress,

26/05/2009 15:03:57
Well yes. And trolling.
37

,

26/05/2009 15:26:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

Buttress,

26/05/2009 15:31:09
Your opinions do seem to change to suit the story though. And I do feel that you have misrepresented my opinions somewhat. ;-)

It will be interesting to hear what happens at the rest of the inquiry. No doubt this paper will be reporting on it daily, as long as it reflects its pro-developer stance.

There will be people with opinions there, people with international expertise, who think this development isn't going to be a great one. It's a lost opportunity. Another lost opportunity.





39

,

26/05/2009 15:31:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

Buttress,

26/05/2009 15:33:33
I don't think she's a great singer, the bits I have listened to, but I wish her all the best of luck, as many clearly are enjoying her sudden rise to recognition, and I hope she enjoys the success.
41

,

26/05/2009 15:34:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

,

26/05/2009 15:36:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

Buttress,

26/05/2009 15:36:19
Now just how much of a tart do you... no we'll not go there.
44

Buttress,

26/05/2009 15:37:32
Well, in an 'opinions' space it's what you usually get. Deal with it.
45

Foo,

26/05/2009 16:09:25
OK, ding ding, handbags out, round two.
46

Buttress,

26/05/2009 16:19:32
I don't possess a handbag. Can you loan one to me?
47

madskillz,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 17:32:07
Please stop the polluting the comments section, Buttress. I think scotsman.com should allow a user to comment only once on a story rather than giving the opinions of certain users almost as much exposure as the article itself.
48

Statsman,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 17:54:14
His views on the Balmoral and Caledonian hotels is quite funny. The railway companies built the grandest hotels they could to show off. They were meant to be like palaces. It wasn't a question of sticking up some ugly development purely for profit.

His design is cheap, tacky and ugly. It's purely a profit based building.
49

Buttress,

26/05/2009 17:58:45
48 - really? How very amusing.
50

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 26/05/2009 18:44:21
As long as Diana's pool hall is unaffected, who cares ?
51

Seb,

26/05/2009 21:37:30
Murphy's certainly right about one thing - the Balmoral isn't great architecture, it's a bit of a beast.
52

Think Tank,

26/05/2009 22:57:55
As I've been arguing for many a year, it's absolutely impossible for the anti-progress brigade to dispute this sentiment:

"Historic Scotland have no sense of history, as all of the buildings they now support and preserve would never have been given their approval at the planning stage," he said. "That is the conundrum we face."

I know it's true. Richard Murphy knows it's true. The Cockburn Association, Historic Scotland and the rest of the gravy train know it's true.

So let's not talk about it.


53

Rap,

26/05/2009 23:09:51
The gravy train? What? Been sniffing ink again Think Tank?
54

Buttress,

26/05/2009 23:22:20
Blimey - Septic rears again! The Kraken wakes!

Yes, go back to sleep. Gravy train indeed.

No Seb, it's not cutting edge and a bit of a beast, but a much loved on by many.

55

Buttress,

26/05/2009 23:22:54
That should read ' much loved by many'.
56

Buttress,

26/05/2009 23:24:40
Historic Scotland have no sense of history, as all of the buildings they now support and preserve would never have been given their approval at the planning stage," he said. "That is the conundrum we face."

But many are given 'approval' now. They support the Haymarket Tower.

57

Rap,

26/05/2009 23:25:34
Oh yes, are you implying it's some sort of fertilty ground then Buttress, like the Cerbe Abbas Giant, with people rolling around all over it? ;)
58

Rap,

26/05/2009 23:26:20
I bet they approved Haymarket House as well....
59

Rap,

26/05/2009 23:32:11
Seb, You're A&DS aren't you? It was the position of the tower on the site you didn't like, but you thought the design of the tower itself was okay?
60

Buttress,

26/05/2009 23:37:01
Big isn't always best, is it?

61

Rap,

26/05/2009 23:38:41
An architect's equivalent of a red ferrari when they hit middle age perhaps?
62

Buttress,

26/05/2009 23:46:23
Maybe... it used to be an e-type that thy bought. I had a friend who had one he called Richard, actually.

He said it was his big red...
63

,

27/05/2009 07:26:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

Buttress,

27/05/2009 07:35:30
Don't read it then. It's not compulsory.
65

Rap,

27/05/2009 09:22:21
So nice to see a bit of balance about this site for a change.
66

Rap,

27/05/2009 09:22:59
I meant Haymarket rather than edinburghnews.scotsman.com of course.
67

Tr1xx,

Edinburgh 03/06/2009 17:57:02
Just chucking in my own observations here.

Last time I checked the online application, (June last year), the proposed building was actually higher than most people might ever imagine. The heights quoted on the elevations conveniently seemed to ignore a large glass projection that is WAY higher than the ridge.

By my reckoning, based on comparison with readily available Ordnance Survey level data, the top of the proposed building would appear higher than the castle when approaching the city centre from the west (Glasgow Road) direction.

Alas, the St James Centre debacle is about to be repeated I fear, unless common sense prevails.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Are Edinburgh’s planning regulations too strict on the city’s business community?
Yes - everything should be done to help businesses in a recession
Yes - they pale into insignificance when compared to the tram works
No - the city’s heritage and appearance can’t be compromised

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.