Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 24th November 2009

Haymarket hotel row developer to produce new scheme for site

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: 05 November 2009
THE firm behind the axed £250 million hotel development next to Edinburgh's Haymarket railway station is to bring forward new plans for the site, The Scotsman can reveal.
Irish firm Tiger has embarked on fresh negotiations with the city council over a new masterplan for a gap site which has lain empty for more than 40 years.

Architect Richard Murphy has already held initial talks about a new scheme with the develop
er, which has revealed it is fully committed to the site. It said it was "working hard" to find a new way of transforming it.

The Scotsman has learned that outline plans are expected to be produced for the council by the end of November. Senior councillors yesterday said they were "optimistic" a new scheme would be viable.

Speculation has been mounting that the company would either walk away from the site or mothball it for years until the property market improves.

Sources close to the developer, however, say that abandoning the site is seen as a "last ditch" option. It is thought Tiger will go back to the drawing board rather than simply scale back the height of the 17-storey hotel that triggered so many objections.

The height was opposed by inspectors from world heritage body Unesco, Edinburgh World Heritage and the Cockburn Association, which led the protests against the scheme at a public inquiry earlier this year.

The inquiry report was highly critical of the effect the building would have on the area, as well as on classic views of St Mary's Cathedral and Edinburgh Castle. It also condemned Mr Murphy's design of the scheme for "failing to respect" existing buildings in at Haymarket.

One insider said: "There is no alternative scheme on the table, but work is already under way to produce a new vision for the site. Walking away isn't an option."

A spokesman for Tiger told The Scotsman: "Our vision to create a new gateway to the west side of the city received a huge amount of support from local people, businesses and Edinburgh City Council.

"The development would have been a great boost to the local economy and would have created a vibrant new quarter.

"We remain committed to the site. We're now working hard with the council and other stakeholders to find a new way of transforming the derelict Haymarket site into an exciting part of this historic city."

Council planning convener Jim Lowrie said: "We still want a five-star hotel to go ahead there and we are in favour of some kind of landmark. The inquiry reporter was not against the whole development; it was the height and bulk of the scheme that was the major concern.

"But we don't think the scheme is dead by any means."





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Brianwci,

05/11/2009 00:36:10
Excellent. Well done Tiger, stay with it, we need this development.
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 00:52:25

God What Next?, We wait with Bated Breath!, it better be a gross improvement on their last fiasco, of wanting to build a building, that looked like a moon station!,
Its Haymarket Station you know, not a Station to invite the Aliens, but that what comes from watching too much Star Trek.

3

Mallory,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 04:13:53
Why doesn't this architect lie down and take his kicking quietly? There must be plenty of places around the world who would love 17+ storey iconic buildings and Murphy would be an ideal choice and able to produce an off the shelf cut-price design.

I have sent the artist impressions of the Haymarket effort to an influential friend in South East Asia. Should a sale arise I will donate part of my 'introduction fee' to the Architects Benevolent Society.

4

Rap,

05/11/2009 08:03:18
Yeah yeah yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. And actually quite a lot about the site was criticised and not just Tiger Tower. the design as well as height of both hotels were criticised. That's not just a quick fix. And of course the local community hasn't changed and the new change in planning laws means a proper consultation (on the scheme which is actually in the planning application, as opposed to a fantasy scheme which then increases by 4 storeys) must be had. It won't be a quick process.
5

dba,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 08:13:23
OPEN NOTE to Messrs Tiger Developments AND Mr Murphy.

1: The Building level(s) should NOT exceed SIX storeys.
2: The buildings should relect the tradition and heritage of the City central 'Georgian' core.
3: You really must LISTEN to the views of the locals residents, workers and heritage bodies.
4: Produce a scheme that will be a credit both to yourselves AND the City of Edinburgh.

NOTE TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND COMMITTEE:

It is strongly suggested that you get the next scheme RIGHT
(a) we need to make massive Civic savings...shedding a few planning staff could be a start!
(b) The NEXT municpal elections are NOT THAT FAR AWAY and the silence and apathy of certain Councillors who failed in their 'duty of care' WILL be subject of pre-election debate!!!
6

Rap,

05/11/2009 08:22:24
The issue of building over the railway lines was covered in great detail in the inquiry and it was clear that it is possible (see the plan which currently has planning consent on the site) but time and money deterred the developers. But, this means, if they bothered to look at this possibility any hotel does not have to be so high to achieve the same room number.

From the Public Inquiry report :-
"7.16 It is submitted that the architect’s ambition is that Edinburgh could be a city where tourists come to see contemporary architecture as well as the historic city. I find it unlikely that this would be achieved by the proposed development."

"Whilst that would not particularly obscure any view, it would reinforce the change in scale and visually oppress the colonies buildings and the shops along the street. That feature would fail to respect the character of the surrounding area, contrary to policy CD11."

"7.28
The specific design may be attractive to a five star hotel operator and the location may offer a high profile to the brand. A prominent hotel would also support the business image of the city and reflect the importance of tourism at the same time. However, there is nothing inherent in the design of a hotel which requires it to be tall. The hotel use does not add to the architectural justification for its height. No doubt a tall building could become an accepted part of the skyline of Edinburgh over time, much as the North British and Caledonian railway hotels have. But that does not automatically mean that it would be respected for its intervention or that it would protect or improve the skyline of the city."

"7.36
Daylight and sunlight would be reduced for nearby buildings. Recognised standards would be breached. This would be a consequence of the height of the buildings on the site."

"7.45
The appellant seeks world class modern architecture in Edinburgh. That is a fine aspiration, but good architecture does not need to be tall. Recent develop
7

Rap,

05/11/2009 08:26:25
Recent developments in the Exchange District and beyond in the south west quarter of the city centre have so far respected more or less the prevailing building heights. Edinburgh like any other thriving city needs to adapt to meet current demand and to survive economically. However, the city continues to thrive and has managed to do so whilst resisting pressures for the skyward growth that has characterised many other UK city centres over the last half century. I have been given no evidence that progress now depends upon such growth."

"8.2
The proposed uses would accord with the development plan. The proposed design would provide a development of high quality design and in many respects an improvement on the scheme permitted by ministers in 2006. However, in urban design terms, the landmark five star hotel would fail to respect the grain and scale of the surrounding townscape, dominating the Haymarket space to the detriment of its neighbours."

"8.3
On balance, the proposed development would have a negative effect on the gateway to the city at the Haymarket. That would conflict with policy CD11 of the local plan and policy Des 1 of its emerging replacement."

"8.4
The five star hotel building would rise above the height of the surrounding buildings and impact on key views of St Mary’s Cathedral spires and Castle Rock. Although a landmark, it would not enhance the skyline and would not be justified by the proposed use. The proposed development would be contrary to policy CD12 of the local plan and policy Des 10 of its emerging replacement. The impact on the city skyline would not preserve the setting of the world heritage site or prominent listed buildings which are landmark features within it."

"8.6
I have found that the proposals would also be contrary to certain policies of the emerging local plan and the councils supplementary guidance, which are material considerations of significant weight."

So, any new application will not be a quick fix. I wo
8

Rap,

05/11/2009 08:27:17
I would assume any outline plan submitted by the end of November would be very hazy. And even if they do go ahead the formal public consultation awaits.....
9

Rap,

05/11/2009 08:33:45
"A spokesman for Tiger told The Scotsman: "Our vision to create a new gateway to the west side of the city received a huge amount of support from local people, businesses and Edinburgh City Council.
"

Where is the evidence for this? Only something like 90 questionnaires were returned to Tiger (full of loaded questions about iconic landmarks) and there was not clear wish by respondents. The only organisation, apart from the Council, to support the plan was the Chamber of Commerce. Not even Richard Murphy's employees wrote in to support the site as they did with his personal house planning application. Where is the evidence for this statement?
10

Navvy,

05/11/2009 08:39:57
#5 any building over the railway should allow for future High Speed Trains to get to Waverley
11

Rap,

05/11/2009 08:42:05
Navvy, unfortunately the two tunnels are the limiting factor to the type and quantity of traffic that goes beneath them. The development above should have absolutely no impact on that traffic if the engineers are doing their jobs right.
12

Igorr,

05/11/2009 09:11:36
Nice to see the Dalry rep Rap approaching this constructively.
13

Rap,

05/11/2009 09:28:07
Igorr, I'm not anyone's rep. I'm a resident who has been involved in this process for three years now, and if you have made huge amounts of effort to get involved - positively - with the developers and then have everything ignored then I think you'd be a bit sceptical as well. After all, what's the point of public consultation, to get concessions agreed with the developers and then find they have all been ignored when the application is submitted. How would you feel?
14

Buttress,

05/11/2009 09:54:04
Mr Murphy is still living in lala land if he thinks he had mass support.

Another chuckle for Rap

http://independentrepublicofthecanongate.blogspot.com/2009/11/dear-santa.html

15

Rap,

05/11/2009 10:05:02
Perhaps this is how they plan to knock up a brand new Masterplan in 30 days? Just wish they'd stick to the online version though....
16

Buttress,

05/11/2009 10:13:57
Well, in future we don't have to rely on their fantasy illustrations of the height, ie 17 storeys which looked the same height as adjcent buildings.

"Given a proposal for a new building in a city like Edinburgh, they can also create virtual realities, almost microscopically accurate, so viewers might see what the building looks like from all angles in the place where it’s intended to go, including the shadows it might cast at different times of day..."

New York Times November 4th Scots Aim Lasers at Landmarks

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/arts/design/05abroad.html?_r=1
17

Buttress,

05/11/2009 10:19:17
"What are the big cultural implications? For starters, Mr. Pritchard talked about “a new kind of empowerment.” He was referring to the prospect of using virtual-reality models to allow the public to judge all sorts of proposed urban plans. The drawings and computer simulations long cooked up by developers and architects will be replaced by more detailed, easier-to-comprehend, more objective views, in essence democratizing knowledge..."

18

Buttress,

05/11/2009 10:28:54
Mind you, when the Scotsman 'reveals', a'source close to' speaks, an unnamed 'spokesperson' is quoted etc, I'm always wary that it's Brian F filling column inches again and the reality is a long way from what's written.

'A vibrant quarter...' straight from the developers handbook of PR s***e.
19

Dunaskin,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 10:29:04
#10 Navvy - a better solution might be to put the High Speed Rail station on the Morrison St Goods Yard site. Perhaps with a hotel above?
20

The Earl of Dalry,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 10:31:19
While I was all for the hotel, it seems impossible to get consensus for such a tall building with contemporary design. Is it not possible to simply recreate the fasard of a building like Waverly Gate but add on a few more floors to make it 8 or 9 stories high?

It could look like it always belonged here and not be quite as obstructive as the height of the last design.
21

Buttress,

05/11/2009 10:37:22
Why not architecture of our time, built in a manner which respects the context and isn't over tall for the site? That's doesn't have to be (yawn) more glass towers.

And Richard Murphy is capable of doing that. Landmarks can be beautiful, and carefully crafted, but I'm not sure Tiger wants beauty or simply the maximum profit.
22

SaintGlenn,

Sunny Chesser 05/11/2009 10:59:52
#20

Yes, let's build another Waverley Gate! A beautiful building, yet still empty after a number of years. What a joy. (maybe THAT could be a 5 star hotel?)

p.s. facade, not fasard.

I despair at the planning department, to let this landmark building design fall by the wayside, but let those monstrosities at the old Fountain Brewery site be built (lovely student accomodation!) and also allowing the demolition of the Caley Ale House to make way for a proposed modern glass tram stop.

I would suggest Murphy's design would enhance not obstruct the Edinburgh skyline.

Wrong principles and priorities anyone?
23

Buttress,

05/11/2009 11:07:39
The problem with Waverley Gate is that it IS now simply a facade. The interior is modern and lots of glass.

Well, following an exhaustive public inquiry, and taking into account (which the council failed to do) all policies both national and local, it was decided that it wouldn't enhance the site, the setting or the skyline.

There is now no choice, it's a dead as in deceased design.

24

The Earl of Dalry,

Edinburgh 05/11/2009 12:01:02
#23, Buttress, what do you mean "the problem with Waverly Gate is that it IS now simply a facade. The interior is modern and lots of glass".

What’s wrong with that! If someone designed something just like Waverly Gate for the Haymarket site would you still be moaning that its interior features dont date back a few hundred years and the fact that it has working plumbing detracts from Edins world heritage listing and threatens to plummet the city into disrepair.

Are the people that opposed the hotel able to put forward their own design so the rest of us are able to gauge what would and wouldn’t constitute the rape of the city skyline!
25

Buttress,

05/11/2009 12:16:37
I mean that the interior retains nothing of great attractiveness to anyone seeking a historic building, and those who wanted a modern office building of no great interior interest possibly could get one cheaper elsewhere.

I could ask a few architects to do so... but isn't it obvious from what the inquiry report said what constitutes the 'rape' of the city skyline?

26

Buttress,

05/11/2009 12:19:48
And I repeat - I don't think we should be building something from the past. But a 17-storey hotel at this location wasn't the right building.

And we could have something which isn't the dismal Missoni either.
27

Mibc,

Haymarket 05/11/2009 12:27:56
#24, Yes. The prople who opposed the hotel ARE able to put forward their own design: it wouldn't be 17 storeys high, blocking the sun at the Haymarket for most of the day, giving hotel occupants the opportunity to study the eating, relaxing and sleeping habits of those living in the Dalry colonies, and increasing the traffic pollution in an area already suffering that problem. It would be more original in design than Murphy's remodelling of a design already used in a 17-storey development in England.
The objections have never been about modern design; they've been about impact on the local community, the local area, and Edinburgh as a fine city to live in, work in, and for people to visit.
It was never a "landmark" building, it was an eyesore, a finger in the air to local residents.
28

Ted & Janet,

Belwood Ontario Canada 05/11/2009 12:48:34
Ist'n the the United Kingdom in Recession right now? In today's World the trend is to have Motel's rather than old fashioned Hotels that take up too much space and are usually under used as a place for people for short term stays!
Now there is no space at Haymarket to build a Motel either, the people who want this development only want to make a profit for themselves, they are not thinking of the people or about The City in general, the word is "Greed"
29

Rap,

05/11/2009 12:49:18
#24 The point of the consultation was to elicit these views from local residents, so they are no surprise to Tiger. But if no-one pays any attention, what's the point?
30

Rap,

05/11/2009 13:39:44
#28 There was a "motel" as part of the planning application, as well as the 17 storey hotel. It didn't get as attention thought. It was cheap and nasty so was thankfully also refused.

But yes, money is driving the development, with a sprinkling of ego.

Why surprises me is that ultimately the Council are responsible for this state of affairs and yet people objecting to the development are getting abuse. The public inquiry report quite clearly says that the protection of the World Heritage Site is covered (apart from the buffer zone) in existing policies, as long as they are followed. The same with the design, height, function of the development. But, the Council did not follow their own policies and a huge amount of money was spent by all taxpayers on the inquiry, with the Council stumping up a legal team to defend their own failures. Why aren't you all annoyed at them?
31

Buttress,

05/11/2009 13:55:11
And let's remember all those policies were put out for public consultation befor adoption by the council.

Why aren't they annoyed? It's because most people haven't clue about planning, architecture or the council but are keen to spout about it anyhow.

32

Buttress,

05/11/2009 14:48:51
Thank you Peter Wilson (Urban Realm)

Murphy’s Low
It’s been a bit of a week for Richard Murphy, what with his practice partying in celebration of its 18th birthday last Friday and the news that his carefully-knitted scheme for Haymarket had completely unravelled in the hands of the Planning Reporter tasked with running the Inquiry into the project To make matters worse, Lord McCluskey, the former judge and Solicitor general of Scotland gave our hero the kind of toasting in the pages of the Scotsman that entirely disproves the notion that all publicity is good publicity. Certainly, Richard’s lack of humility over his plans and his subsequent and widely-publicised ire at the knock-back of his project wasn’t likely to make him many friends, especially as he seemed determined to confuse the objectives of the developers, the City Council and their friendly flunkies in the Chamber of Commerce with the interests of the actual city itself (sorry Richard, but “for once Edinburgh is on my side” doesn’t quite sit on the side of accuracy).

The various business interests in town have also been beside themselves at the thought of the site continuing to remain undeveloped and have generally prostrated themselves in front of the Irish developers in the hope that they won’t withdraw completely. This seems unlikely: they got the land for a song after all and are unlikely to find a more complicit planning department anywhere else in the UK. Trouble is, trust with the public has pretty much broken down on this one and small variations on the previous plans are unlikely to cut the mustard. It does give Richard a second chance to show that he hasn’t entirely lost it and that he can, when pushed, still produce intelligent architecture.
33

Buttress,

05/11/2009 15:19:34
Letters
November 4 2009
Far from passing the buck (Editorial, 2 November), architectural competitions are regarded in most other parts of Europe as a fundamental aspect of the democratic process. In cities such as Helsinki, the use to which major sites are to be put is publicly debated to form the brief for competitions, a process that ensures citizens are not only engaged in the development of their capital, but that political differences are generally settled before any competition is launched. Almost always, the competition-winning design is constructed, funding having been put in place before the competition takes place.

Contrast this with Edinburgh, where design competitions have all too often been used as a substitute for serious political debate and for which neither financial nor planning matters are ever settled in advance. The net result is stasis: nothing is resolved and little of genuine merit gets built.

In the past 20 years we have seen a series of excellent international competitions for projects including a major extension to the Central Library, the upgrading of Waverley Station and the redevelopment of Morrison Street goods yard, but not a single one of the winners has been erected and each of the sites remains blighted to this day.

Malcolm Fraser is nevertheless correct to suggest that well-run design competitions can make a significant contribution to the improvement of architectural quality in Edinburgh, and the city's councillors – if they genuinely aspire to European capital status – would do well to examine the competition systems in place in other countries. These are well-established processes (more than 100 years old in the case of Helsinki) which, with their consistent rules and judging, completely transcend the kind of tiresome and hopelessly myopic debate that exists here about whether the old should be replicated or the new embraced.

The Haymarket debacle makes abundantly clear that the continuing application of 20th-
34

Buttress,

05/11/2009 15:20:06
cont

20th-century town planning and development attitudes to the Edinburgh of the 21st century is only producing homogeneous mediocrity.

The city urgently needs to engage in the search for a new and distinctive indigenous architecture that is not only world-class but is also empathetic to the urban design qualities that have given it an enduring international reputation.

New paradigms are needed and the creation of a coherent, city-wide policy for architectural competitions would be an intelligent and highly encouraging beginning.

PETER WILSON

Edinburgh Napier University
35

Buttress,

05/11/2009 15:35:29
I think actually that's what UNESCO said too.
36

CRAGman,

05/11/2009 16:12:04
Do we need another hotel? Maybe.

Do we need to find a city centre station for high speed rail services coming in the future up the west coast to Edinburgh? You bet!

So, it's CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT that this site - a railway yard served previously from trhe west coast route - be kept as an option for Edinburgh's high speed rail services to England. That's the top priority - and planners should be factoring this in now and pursuing a purchase of this site. In fact, the Scottish Government should be buying the site off of Tiger.
37

Buttress,

05/11/2009 16:15:48
CEC sold it to Tiger, for a song.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

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.