Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th December 2009

'Terrified and timid' policy attacked by top architect

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: 30 October 2009
THE Scottish Government "caved in to timidity" and defied Edinburgh's own wishes by rejecting plans for a 17-storey hotel scheme, the architect behind the proposals said yesterday.
Breaking his silence on the decision, Richard Murphy suggested neither the Balmoral Hotel nor the New Town itself would have been built under a planning policy characterised by "timidity and terror of our heritage".

He is meeting today with Iris
h developer Tiger, his client for the proposals for a £250 million hotel and office complex in Haymarket, which centred around the controversial 17-storey tower.

Mr Murphy said: "Edinburgh is on our side on this occasion. The city council wanted it to happen, the planning committee wanted it to happen, but I'm as surprised as anyone that the Scottish Government caved in to timidity." The Scottish Government called in the planning decision on the Haymarket site, a former railway goods yard now used as a car park, over concerns about the project's impact on the city's skyline and on a "prominent gateway" to the city.

Its decision said the five-star hotel would affect key views of nearby St Mary's Cathedral and Castle Rock. It would "not enhance the skyline" and would not preserve the setting of the Edinburgh Unesco World Heritage Site, creating a "negative impact on the gateway to the city at Haymarket".

The council is said to be deeply concerned the site will be left vacant and is keen for the developer to draw up fresh plans.

Mr Murphy said the controversial Haymarket project, though it was bitterly opposed by some critics, went through a "really good process" before it won council approval.

"Not everybody voted for it, but it was still a very good decision," he said. "We are still puzzled as to why it was called in. Timidity is the word. It sends a very bad signal.

"Whatever you think of the North British Hotel (now the Balmoral], we wouldn't have it if they had been through the same planning inquiry. You wouldn't have the New Town, if we had had this timidity and terror of our heritage, which is what it is boiling down to now.

"We are kind of haunted by our past now, and the idea that nothing could possibly contribute to the skyline of Edinburgh. It does send out a very bad image of Scotland."

Mr Murphy's stand has won the backing of some contemporary architects in Scotland who say other capital cities and World Heritage Sites, like Amsterdam, have learned how to insert contemporary buildings into historic settings. But conservationists argued it was out of proportion to the surrounding cityscape.

The architectural historian Miles Glendinning, at Edinburgh College of Art, agreed that the Balmoral hotel building, which opened in 1902, would not have been built today. For decades, 20th-century architects universally reviled the building, he said, as the worst example of Victorian kitsch.

However, he backed the Haymarket decision. "I certainly applaud it but, in a way, it was inevitable. Opinion all over the world has been turning decisively against aggressive iconic buildings, and this was an aggressive iconic building, and rather out of character of Richard Murphy."

Most of Mr Murphy's work, he said, had been "embedded" into the existing cultural and architectural setting.

Mr Murphy's architects' firm, which celebrated its 18th anniversary this week, has put its stamp on Scottish buildings from residential homes to art centres.

Award-winning designs have ranged from university campuses and housing projects to the Fruitmarket Gallery in Edinburgh and the £10 million British High Commission building in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

A Scottish Government spokesman said yesterday that ministers had "carefully considered" the evidence on the building.

"Ministers recognise the site has been identified as a development opportunity and hope key stakeholders can work together to find a solution which realises the site's potential."





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Fletty,

30/10/2009 00:12:55

Typical architect spitting the dummy when he doesn't get his own way.

Not all, but, too many of these art school graduates have no sense of taste.
2

Buttress,

30/10/2009 01:02:53
Oh, dear me Murphy. What a joke. The only one surprised is you - the rest of us knew it hadn't a chance.

Edinburgh's own wishes? Hardly. That's why you were fought all the way by the local community then? Or don't those people count?

You lost. Have some grace.

And please it wasn't 'iconic' Such a daft word.

Try reading this:

http://independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/2009/10/remembering-haymarket-horror.html

and this

http://independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/2009/10/haymarket-howler-rip.html

You were puzzled why it was called in? I posted the reasons here at the time from the official letter stating the long list of reasons. You mean you really have no idea? You don't understand that it went agianst democratically adopted planning policies?

Astounding.

What arrogance though.


3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/10/2009 01:38:46

No-One in Edinburgh needs or wants a Monster Building, constructed at the Haymarket in Edinburgh, or anywhere else in Edinburgh in matter of fact, to spoil our skyline, for tourists being charged extravagant prices, just for others to make their own profits, and have no regard of Edinburgh, but only one of their pockets.



4

CRAGman,

30/10/2009 02:27:17
The Richard Murphy building was a fine enough building - just in the wrong place. The city centre of Edinburgh is not Leith or the City of London or London Docklands.

An InterContinental Hotel of that height might have played well in the centre of Bucharest in the Ceausescu era - but never in 21st century Edinburgh.

A final point - it's also very 20th century to be building over old railway land. This site in the city centre could well provide a useful option for a high speed rail station for Edinburgh since Waverley has very little spare capacity. The proposed high speed line from London is likely to come up the west coast and old rail trackbeds are available which could be used to bring it into town quite easily and separate from existing lines.
5

Baggy Troosers,

30/10/2009 04:11:30
#4

Donald Dewar and the Labour party's disgrace.
6

Saul Tyre,

30/10/2009 06:19:19
Mr Murphy's bad luck is that he is dealing with people who care about the negative impact of an oversized Cornflakes box in the centre of our capital city and not with the Labour dummies who rubber stamped the planning permission for the Red Road flats in Glasgow.
7

dba,

Edinburgh 30/10/2009 07:47:40
There would appear to be no limit to Mr. Murphy's ego or arrogance!

He and his clients rode roughshod over the perfectly legal and proper concerns and objections from the LOCAL COMMUNITY and civic groups, rather than the disturbing acquiesence of the somewhat clueless members of the Planning Committee, Planning staff who seemed to forget their 'duty of care' to the residents of the city and his supporters ALL OF WHOM had expectations of financial benefice.

Mr Murphy should NOT have been 'surprised': he should accept a lesson in humility and realism...
Given that he HAS produced well-designed and attractive buildings in the past - let him calm down, LISTEN to local and group views and should be able to come up with a design for the site that is (a) of a character and dimensions as to fit into the local area, (b) NOT dominate and overwhelm the adjacent architecture (c) not impinge on or disrupt the views of the City skyline from the west and (d) provide and attractive and compliant project in respect of modern living and working... it might mean less fess and even a hint of humility but it COULD happen.
All pigs serviced, fuelled and ready to fly!
8

Buttress,

30/10/2009 07:59:56
And of course contemporary buildings can be 'inserted' into a World Heritage Site. However, in Edinburgh, the skyline is one of the characteristics for which it received its UNESCO designation.

The 'tall buildings' which dot the skyline are slim, 'public' structures not hulking great commercially driven monsters lit up at night and dominating all around.

Not a great building, and certainly wrong for the site and the context.

Do architects live in such a self-centred bubble that the basics of sound planning have passed them by?

It's not 'timidity' that's the problem, it's bad architecture.

The fight against this development was headed by the Cockburn Association, and its considerable costs for the inquiry paid for by members of the public who donated. To suggest 'Edinburgh' was behind him shows how out of touch Murphy is.

If he also thinks that the planning committee has a clue, then he really does need to wise up.









9

Biggar Mac,

Biggar 30/10/2009 08:12:25
There are enough monstrosities (the Kings Buildings come to mind) spoiling the skyline on entry roads to the centre of Edinburgh. Thank goodness this one has been stopped. The merits of the building itself are not the issue, the skyline of the approaches to a World heritage site is the important point.
10

Buttress,

30/10/2009 08:12:56
#8 This is the sad thing - Richard Murphy has indeed produced some sensitive buildings for the city in the past, but they were smaller in scale and I fear that he thought he had to produce something 'memorable' for this site, forgetting that memorable doesn't have to mean it fights with its neighbours and dominate and overshadow the area to the extent this would have done.

What an opportunity he now has to show that he can produce a fine contemporary Scottish building, of a scale and style to suit the context. Not another Missoni, either, please.

Sadly, I think Tiger's need for fat profits will make that difficult.

But public hissy fits such as this could and should be avoided by architects; grace in defeat is better. OK we all realise that your genius is being thwarted, but hey, other people have to live with your creations for many years to come.
11

Prudence,

30/10/2009 08:13:22
Oh , I think if this had gone ahead , it would have intruded upon and overshadowed something very precious. If Edinburgh is to have any "icons" , it has the castle and greyfriars bobby .Does the castle not blend in naturally upon its foundation giving the city its unique skyline, not a haunting of the past but rather a proud part of Scotland's history. Greyfriars bobby didn't spend 14 years at his masters grave because he wanted to be a 21st century Scottish icon, and despite the upheaval in Princes street, I have never seen Edinburgh look so beautiful as it did recently. Why try and destroy this ?
12

Lurker2,

E Lothian 30/10/2009 08:15:20
Boys 'n gals - if we read the story carefully we will realise it is a crude attempt by the newspaper to align itself with Murphy, with drummed up quotes such as "Mr Murphy's stand has won the backing of some contemporary architects" i.e. we couldn't find many (and they're not named anyway) Read again to find the story behind the story, as I tell my students. "Breaking his silence on the decision" - after we phoned him...calm down everyone.
13

Kirsty Boyd-Williamson,

New Town 30/10/2009 08:18:41
Murphy exhibits a similar bankrupt mindset to those who were permitted to partially destroy Princes Street in the 60s and who also blighted the city with Argyle House, Shrub House, St James Centre and the ghastly piles of depressing concrete at both George Square and Clifton Terrace. Many of us fought the proposals and were branded as 'Phillistines' by the pipe-smoking 'beards' claiming the architectual high ground.
Mr Murphy seems terribly excited by high-rise yet I doubt very much if he lives in high-rise accommodation. A pox on architects!
14

It's me!,

30/10/2009 08:19:39
Is there anything bigger than an architect's ego?
15

Rap,

30/10/2009 08:25:32
His slab block hotel?
16

Buttress,

30/10/2009 08:38:08
#13 - It's Ok really, we know how the Scotsman works (although usually it's Brian F and not Tim C making it up as he goes along) BUT Murphy has in the past thrown hissy fits in the architectural press over this matter, hitting out at the 'conservation mafia', UNESCO, and possibly even the tooth fairy too, so please, let us have our hour of fun at his expense.

He'd have been better keeping schtum, really, he must know how the press works by now, but he does enjoy a good session of head tossing dummy spitting, so who are we to deny him his reaction?

He can sit and fume at the philistines we all must be for not apprecating his genius, and then go away and come up with something which might show Allan Murray and one or two others I could mention what good architects can do when pushed.
17

Buttress,

30/10/2009 08:51:01
Rap, Rap, naughty. You know it wasn't a'slab'. It was a leaf shaped sculptural whatsit. ;-)

Mr Murphy has caused some controversy over his design for his own new home (I think the would-be neighbours won't be inviting him round for a small sherry as they really, really don't want it built near them) but this is what he had to say in 2006

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/property/my-home-richard-murphy-architect-406627.html

I see the good folk in the Canongate have been busy again this morning; another chuckle

http://independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/2009/10/it-should-have-been-me.html

18

Marian,

30/10/2009 09:08:00
Edinburgh has World Heritage status which it holds on to despite its many monstrous carbuncles erected by trendy Architects on behalf of get rich quick developers. So Edinburgh needs another monstrous carbuncle to spoil its appearance like it needs a hole in the head. End of story.
19

Rap,

30/10/2009 09:11:44
I did enjoy the Norman Wisdom / Lowrie image. Good to know he always has a fall back employment. And I'd happily put a lego development together for a lot less than Tiger for the next application.

Has Murphy conveniently forgotten that the Ministers had to review the application because of the potential financial conflict of interest? They had no choice? And yes, they then decided to call it in, but I really don't see why that makes them timid. Timid is not calling in Caltongate for inquiry.

And, having witnessed the discussions by the Planning Committee, they may have voted for this development 10 - 5 he cannot deny Tiger's scaremongering about being left with the consented scheme did not influence their decision. They asked if they could cancel the consent on the old scheme and were told they could not unless the new one was granted, and funnily enough the new one was granted. Is that really what we are reduced to, getting one development because we hate a previous one so much? And to everyone who is bleating about hold back the economy and modern design, are you really happy to know that is why we end up with certain buildings, not because everyone is in awe of the architectural excellence?

And he may have though it was a "really good process" that was gone through before the Planning Hearing but we don't. The hotel went from 10 storeys to 17, with the local residents still recovering from the 10 storeys and then 12 discussed during the public consultation to the shocking 16 storyes that appeared in the first planning application, and then 17 at the last. And, as I said before, the Council planners expressed concern over the 12 storey version for a couple of months before being blinded by the bling.
20

Buttress,

30/10/2009 09:29:53
Well Rap, it's not only in Edinburgh that Scottish architects with large egos and a desire to 'make their mark' (like a dog at a lampost) wish to spoil the thing they claim they love; in St Petersburg, there is a very real danger that the RMJM (yes, Edinburgh's RMJM) designed Gazprom/Okhta Tower will go ahead, and the WHS designation be removed very soon, paving the way for more destruction of that one wonderful city.

RMJM and Murphy must be singing from the same songsheet, as Tony Kettle has written pretty much similar self-centred nonsense about why the tower should go ahead there.

Bulldozers last week moved in and spoiled forever important archaeological remains on site; a great deal of what is going on is illegal, and there have been major protests which have turned violent with the aid of Gazprom's hired thugs.

This was written about that situation; what it says is transferable to Edinburgh

http://meganinpiter.blogspot.com/2009/10/some-general-commentary-about-october.html

and I think you will agree it sums up the situation there and here neatly.
21

AIasdair,

30/10/2009 10:33:04
"breaking his silence"??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH - the writing in this rag is pathetic.

What silence was that?

That crazy 2 day period that went by before one of the hacks here called one of their favourite rent-a-gobs?
Or was it Murphy that called the Hootsmon? Either way - a similarly desperate effort.
22

Buttress,

30/10/2009 10:38:26
It's the way this paper works - they string out stories over several days to fill pages. Keeps the hacks away from having to do some real journalism.

You'd think by now some would have learned to keep their mouths shut when the Hootsmon calls, or write their own press releases (usually printed without much moderation as it's so much easier) but they don't, they don't...

23

tommy M,

Scotland 30/10/2009 10:40:50
Erm, i believe the local community fought this one tooth and nail. Support from the local community??? He he, you have to laugh! "Timid" - what a bizarre choice of word to describe the sensible protection of Edinburgh's skyline. thank goodness this monstrosity has been stopped.
24

Corstorphine Jambo,

EDINBURGH 30/10/2009 11:15:25
As with many of the comments here I'm delighted that this monstrosity is not going to be built. Many of our unpopular high rise buildings are being blown up, Gracemount being the most recent, to be replaced by low rise housing. This, I believe, is a cause for celebration so please don't let us go down the route of building dominating, high rise buildings again even on a largely commercial basis as was the case with this venture.
25

Saoghal Beag,

30/10/2009 11:30:58
Style before substance. if the architect was worth his salt he would have designed something which referneced its surroundings, referenced current styles and looked forward with innovation and was in scale with its surroundings. not an ego trip.
26

Pilrig.,

Livingston 30/10/2009 14:40:44
St James Centre & George Square - how we dinnae appreciate wonderful new architecture
27

roadstohell,

30/10/2009 15:05:50
Mr Murphy + EGO = LEGO :(
28

Neale,

Edinburgh 30/10/2009 15:15:24
"caved in to timidity"... if this was true then surely the "caving in Govt" would be caving in to pressure from the Developers, the City Council and the award winning Artchitect. Looks like the Archtict is still in denial.
29

Rap,

30/10/2009 17:18:03
I agree Neale, I can understand them wanting reassurance over such a contentious site if they were to be responsible over the final decision. And announcing the decision on the day unesco visited I'm sure wasn't a coincedence. They hopefully realised they made a mistake with Caltongate and didn't want to be blamed for anything else that risked WHS status
30

,

30/10/2009 21:00:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

,

30/10/2009 21:14:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

,

31/10/2009 00:06:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

,

31/10/2009 00:10:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

pinch fingers,

31/10/2009 00:11:59
thankfully
35

Ggordon,

31/10/2009 17:27:30

What about the Gerkin
36

Ggordon,

31/10/2009 17:28:07

New York

Trump Tower
37

Ggordon,

31/10/2009 17:29:38


Singapore

Dubia

Lahore (B)

Paris

Rome
38

Ggordon,

31/10/2009 17:31:10


Berlin


Shanghia

Sydney

Timbuktoo
39

Buttress,

01/11/2009 10:08:57
Ggordon is slightly barking, as anyone who has ever read his 'comments' elsewhere will know.

40

Buttress,

02/11/2009 21:09:25
Report from the inquiry

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212607/0088605.pdf

 

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.