Architect, John McAslan, George Square
Jan 28th 2013. On a dour Monday lunchtime, architect John McAslan is greeted by curious reporters, and a small crowd of impassioned members of the public. Turning out in the rain they wanted to hear his take on the George Square ‘scandal’ and to share opinion on the botched redesign proposal process so far. His design was the preferred scheme of the judging panel, but blocked at the last minute by what the Herald describes as ‘a fit of pique’ by council leader George Matheson. Already the proposals have been removed from the councils website replaced by this somewhat austere page.
www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=9632
Standing at the foot of the Scott Monument at the centre of George Square, the relentless beating of the rain, did little to dampen enthusiasm for the Glasgow born architect’s desire to rekindle hope for the scheme to be picked up again, effectively rescuing the proposal with further engagement and refinement, an act that he is positive the council leadership will see sense in.
Perhaps the expression on his face captured here, expresses the frustration at a process fraught with complications, a lack of transparency and little communication with what the people of Glasgow want from the square truly being taken into account, despite his own and his practice’s intent to see something captivating, inspiring and fitting for the city to be proud of.
The council’s initial response so far is unsubstantiated stating that: "It became clear over the course of the process that there was no public support for a redesign and whatever design had been picked would not be being implemented." This is a misleading statement, and highly questionable. Putting the emphasis on the Glasgow people for reasons why a way forward with proposals could not be officially agreed is an attempt to attract attention away from failures within the competition process itself, to what extent proper engagement with the public was involved, clear briefs and to what extent a fair decision making process was adhered to.
Personally, I think the city would be supportive of proposals for an exciting and imaginative rethink of George square; all be it further investigations required to ensure that the scheme offers what people want from the space, be that respect for the original layout, relaxation areas, performance, display of public art, green space, reflection space, meeting space etc… and to know that the process is fair (ie not corrupt) respecting the area’s context and historic story. Is that asking too much from a design process estimated at costing a couple of hundred grand?
With the slightest inkling of scandal, misappropriation or distrust brought into the mix, a consensus quickly arises to get all hands off the public space and leave us with the square un-spoilt, yet looking a bit neglected; a disservice to Glasgow, whose story is made by bold and imaginative visions being put in place, and deserving a square that truly reflects the spirit of the city at its heart. This must be about what is best for the city, not individual opinions. A pause for reflection and further debate is commendable... however, lets see some further explorations of the designs, more engagement with the public, artists getting more involved, and perhaps collaboration with a landscape architect too!
Architect, John McAslan, George Square
Jan 28th 2013. On a dour Monday lunchtime, architect John McAslan is greeted by curious reporters, and a small crowd of impassioned members of the public. Turning out in the rain they wanted to hear his take on the George Square ‘scandal’ and to share opinion on the botched redesign proposal process so far. His design was the preferred scheme of the judging panel, but blocked at the last minute by what the Herald describes as ‘a fit of pique’ by council leader George Matheson. Already the proposals have been removed from the councils website replaced by this somewhat austere page.
www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=9632
Standing at the foot of the Scott Monument at the centre of George Square, the relentless beating of the rain, did little to dampen enthusiasm for the Glasgow born architect’s desire to rekindle hope for the scheme to be picked up again, effectively rescuing the proposal with further engagement and refinement, an act that he is positive the council leadership will see sense in.
Perhaps the expression on his face captured here, expresses the frustration at a process fraught with complications, a lack of transparency and little communication with what the people of Glasgow want from the square truly being taken into account, despite his own and his practice’s intent to see something captivating, inspiring and fitting for the city to be proud of.
The council’s initial response so far is unsubstantiated stating that: "It became clear over the course of the process that there was no public support for a redesign and whatever design had been picked would not be being implemented." This is a misleading statement, and highly questionable. Putting the emphasis on the Glasgow people for reasons why a way forward with proposals could not be officially agreed is an attempt to attract attention away from failures within the competition process itself, to what extent proper engagement with the public was involved, clear briefs and to what extent a fair decision making process was adhered to.
Personally, I think the city would be supportive of proposals for an exciting and imaginative rethink of George square; all be it further investigations required to ensure that the scheme offers what people want from the space, be that respect for the original layout, relaxation areas, performance, display of public art, green space, reflection space, meeting space etc… and to know that the process is fair (ie not corrupt) respecting the area’s context and historic story. Is that asking too much from a design process estimated at costing a couple of hundred grand?
With the slightest inkling of scandal, misappropriation or distrust brought into the mix, a consensus quickly arises to get all hands off the public space and leave us with the square un-spoilt, yet looking a bit neglected; a disservice to Glasgow, whose story is made by bold and imaginative visions being put in place, and deserving a square that truly reflects the spirit of the city at its heart. This must be about what is best for the city, not individual opinions. A pause for reflection and further debate is commendable... however, lets see some further explorations of the designs, more engagement with the public, artists getting more involved, and perhaps collaboration with a landscape architect too!