Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Plan for capital's own 'Gherkin' hits sour note with heritage groups



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: 02 April 2008
IT IS designed to be Edinburgh's answer to the famous "Gherkin" in London, a new icon towering over the capital.
But a host of heritage groups are ready to fight plans to create the new landmark tower, part of an overhaul of the notorious St James Centre, claiming it would ruin classic views of the city skyline from viewpoints such as Edinburgh Castle, Blackfor
d Hill and Arthur's Seat.

The existing shopping centre and an adjacent vacant office block are widely seen as being among Edinburgh's worst eyesores, and these would be demolished to make way for a new £850 million complex under provisional plans for a "St James Quarter".

It would feature a crescent-shaped shopping arcade, partly inspired by the 19th-century Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II in Milan, along with between one and three multi-storey buildings, housing offices, apartments, cafés and restaurants, and a five-star hotel.

However, the proposed development is being opposed by Historic Scotland, the Scottish Civic Trust, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (AHSS) and Edinburgh World Heritage (EWH), the capital's main watchdog group.

Henderson Global Investors, the owner of the St James Centre, has defended the planned tower on the grounds that it would be no higher than the Balmoral Hotel in nearby Princes Street.

However, The Scotsman has learned that the plans were greeted with horror during a consultation exercise held in recent weeks.

Jane Jackson, the acting director of EWH, said: "The biggest mistake made in designing the original centre was to ignore its setting. This time, the planners and developers need to realise they're not starting with a blank sheet.

"This development will need to respect the city skyline and bear in mind that successful intrusions have been elegant, slender and generally unoccupied, from church spires to domes and monuments."

A spokeswoman for Historic Scotland said: "The redevelopment of the St James Centre is an opportunity to replace a complex of buildings that have a negative impact on their setting, adjoining listed buildings and the city as a whole. We're concerned that the tower being considered would have a significant and harmful impact on the historic environment."

The AHSS has said: "There should be no attempt to create a new visual marker that would damage this world-class view. The city is not without locations for tall buildings, but this isn't one of them."

Chris Pyne, senior portfolio manager at Henderson, said: "We've always recognised the significant public interest in our proposals and have been delighted with the level of interest and engagement in the consultation process. It has played an important role in the preparation of our outline planning application and illustrative master-plan, which we hope to submit to the council in the summer."

Concern is already mounting over the impact on the city's skyline of a new hotel next to Haymarket station and the Caltongate scheme next to Waverley.





The full article contains 494 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

My Hamster Ate Freddie Starr,

02/04/2008 00:14:23
Excellent article!

How do you ruin classic views of the city skyline "from viewpoints such as Edinburgh Castle, Blackford Hill and Arthur's Seat"?

Last time I checked, these sites were on high ground.
2

Just this....................,

Edinburgh 02/04/2008 00:34:41
But a host of heritage groups are ready to fight plans to create the new landmark tower, part of an overhaul of the notorious St James Centre, claiming it would ruin classic views of the city skyline from viewpoints such as Edinburgh Castle, Blackford Hill and Arthur's Seat.

I am sure that Edinburgh was beautiful until the castle was built and ruined the skyline!
3

Teofilio Cubillas,

02/04/2008 01:07:01
Does Edinburgh have to be mothballed in some 17/18th century timewarp anyway? There's nothing wrong with top class modern architecture, as the Gherkin and many other buildings in London demonstrate (as opposed to the soulless 1960's eyesore that is the St James Centre). Edinburgh needs a new broom - look at Princes Street with it's crap 1970's shopfronts, polluted by shoe shops, phone shops and burger bars. No wonder it attracts the thieving, fag-smoking, baseball-capped dross it does.
4

donald,

glasgow 02/04/2008 06:23:26
Gherkin causes pickles.
5

eric,

Lothian 02/04/2008 07:29:05
Edinburgh must be the most wanna be town in UK Wants to be Glasgow but 30yrs behind in Shopping and no subway ,Wants to be like London pickled buildings .Cant anyone come up with something unique!
6

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/04/2008 07:46:30
Why doesn't the Scotsman cut to the chase and just explain that Henderson put in the gerkhin-shaped tower as an option, alongside the hotel in front of the Cathedral, as sacrificial offerings so that the substance of their plan can be passed.

Be in no doubt that after a hard fight, they will reluctantly come up with a design in which both of these contentious options are dropped in favour of more acceptable elements, heritage watchdogs will claim victory, the council will applaud common sense, and the developers will proceed with precisely what they always wanted.

Public space planning in this country is a game, and everyone involved knows the rules - except the public, it would seem.
7

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/04/2008 07:47:24
Oh, and by the way eric, #5, please just go and live in Glasgow and gie's peace.
8

Boy Wonder,

02/04/2008 08:21:21
Shouldn't this article have appeared yesterday ... April 1?
9

Alasdair,

02/04/2008 09:22:24
Duncan, again we find ourselves in complete agreement - on both your points. We must stop letting this happen!

As for the drivel in the article:
1) Can we please stop trying to have our "answer" to what other cities have, or want to build things that are "set to rival" them. It's overly aspirational guff. We can do things our own way, thank-you.

2) Every layout I've seen for the replacement to the St James centre is diabolical. Milan? The galleries there have style. I'll be glad to see the St James go, but please, let's replace it with something better. Excessive glass, reconstituted stone, and plastic panelling is the current equivilent of the over-use of pored concrete from the era of the St James centre. Have we learned nothing inbetween?
10

Old Town Resident,

edinburgh 02/04/2008 10:13:21
Again why is it that Allan Murray is doing this along with every other job in town?
Please stop this madness, and yes 6# thats the game they play, Caltongate was played this way, so now the public are made to believe the developers made concessions, when infact they are doing what they planned all along, complete with all demolitions.
11

Buttress,

02/04/2008 10:52:22
Yes, it's the old developer's ploy again - but I suspect we - and heritage groups - are wise to it now. But I doubt the council is, and I bet they are hand in glove with the developers behind the scenes.

Gherkin? Old hat - Shard of Glass will dwarf it, and everything else in London. Let's not spoil Edinburgh as London has been and is continuing to be.

Murray again though - why does he get all this work? He's hardly a world class architect or masterplanner, see Caltongate, SoCo (ghastly name) etc, and there are those who can build far more sensitively and beautifully in historic locations.



12

Seb,

02/04/2008 12:00:21
#9 Alasdair

reconstituted stone and plastic panelling? Don't recall the materials being detailed at this stage. You seen something the rest of us haven't? Henderson's have my sympathies, if I were them I'd want some totem to raise my property's profile, but this really isn't the best location for it.
13

Buttress,

02/04/2008 12:07:22
As Edinburgh has just retained Terry Farrell as Design Champion, it would be interesting to know aht role he will have in all these new developments.

I don't recall him saying much about the ghastly Caltongate scheme...

www.eh8.org.uk

SoCo...
14

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 02/04/2008 12:18:58
#6 has it spot on regarding the development.
15

Buttress,

02/04/2008 13:46:41
For further views:

http://www.stjamesshopping.com/stjamesconsultation.pdf


All pretty grim ideas really, what a load of self-important guff. Some respect for what is there is required, not carbuncles on the skyline.

16

Neil,

Glasgow 02/04/2008 14:11:48
If it is only going to be as high as the hotel it isn't going to be remotely like the Gherkin. Rather a shame since the original is a stunning building.

"is being opposed by Historic Scotland, the Scottish Civic Trust, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (AHSS) and Edinburgh World Heritage (EWH)"

Do any of these people ever support anything new?
17

Buttress,

02/04/2008 14:19:19
These people would support decent modern, which respects existing - this so far is an ugly lump or series of lumps proposed, with a blot or several on the skyline. One of those proposed lumps is shaped like the gherkin, which in itself is a bit of a blot where it is, and not much of a replacement for the Baltic Exchange, but soon it too will be dwarfed by new build.

Once one is allowed, then all want one.

The hotel is a landmark of some age and fits with the other skyline buildings. As is ststed above.

As this is a World Heritage Site, the highest quality of design is surely required - and this most certainly isn't, from what I can see. It's a try on - to see what they can get away with.

18

john z,

edinburgh 02/04/2008 20:46:35
Seeing as how just about every other city in the world now has a 'Gherkin' shaped building, it would hadrdly be innovative to build one in Edinburgh.

It was innovative, the first time around, but it really is not new now.

But on another point, you really need your head read, if you ever thought such a building was a good idea in Edinburgh city centre.

Who are the clowns that dream such ideas up?? It's not even new, for heavens sake!!
19

john z,

edinburgh 02/04/2008 20:49:14
Can't they get some decent innovative design thinkers in Edinburgh, instead of this guff?
20

John Blackley,

Florida 02/04/2008 21:34:47
"successful intrusions have been elegant, slender and generally unoccupied, from church spires to domes and monuments." - and all of which were built in the late Pliestocene era.

So do the professional objectors have a problem if the shopping centre has a church spire sticking out of it? What about the 'gherkin' if the planners promise to leave it unoccupied?

I wonder what it would take to build a truly beautiful, high-quality, multi-use development in this part of the capital.
21

Buttress,

02/04/2008 22:05:44
It would take a good architect - and developer - and one who understood the surrounding context.

22

Kieron,

Stirling / Edinburgh 03/04/2008 13:39:15
#5 I dn't agree with you often but you make a point this time around. Why on earth was this even an option? (The real) Edinburgh is slipping away from us. We'll soon be another bland UK city if things continue as they are.
23

Fraud Squad,

Scotland 04/04/2008 13:55:27
Is that the same Historic Scotland who were labeled incompetent in a recent enquiry and who lied to the City Council when the listed a morningside house at the request of Sir Kenneth Scott the Queen's private deputy secretary. See :

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburghplanningissues/Hysteric-Scotland-Planning-quango39s-competence.3607012.jp

I think that quango's days are numbered anyway!!!
24

Buttress,

05/04/2008 12:14:48
I think that you are wrong about Historic Scotland's days being numbered - unsure where that piece of guff came from - I suggest you look at its remit - and the report you link to was not exactly accurate. It also was about a very small part of its operation, ad one incident, as the government national heritage body. I suggest you read the real report and consider actions that were taken following that.

Should heritage concerns be brushed aside in a World Heritage Site? Should there be a planning free for all, with poor quality development built in a vacuum?

I think not.
25

Jamie Dunne,

Edinburgh 07/04/2008 11:26:24
Can we please cease use of the word 'guff'.

I'm not entirely sure what constitutes 'high quality' modern architecture, but I get the feeling it would look somewhat 19th century.
26

Shug the Dug,

Edinburgh 12/04/2008 12:05:52
Neil #16 - The answer to your silly question is simple - "YES". The clue lies in their titles and therein is explained the reason for their creation. They are there to preserve and conserve. Edinburgh is the capital, it has been the financial and administrative centre of the country for centuries. As such it is expected to maintain certain standards and to be the location for examples of the best of Scotland's art and culture. It is one of the major financial centres in the world, its universities are among the best in the world, it has no need to be regenerated into a hellish metropole, its skyline full of non-Scots, non-Edinburgh developers driven by cras profit motives of their own without any care or thought to aesthetics and the welfare of the people who inhabit the city. That such organisations continue to exist reflects the level of popular support they enjoy, and the fact they appear to spend most of their time opposing tawdry, tacky, piles reflects the level of threat Edinburgh faces. More power to them. God bless them!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.