Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 11:41am Mon 28 Apr 08
I'd be interested to know where all of of those who voted to get rid of the Sighthill flats live, i.e in tenements, detatched villas, 4 in a block, or the newer high rise and riverside developments.
Those, including myself who've maybe never lived in that kind of community of high rise flats may not know the advantages.
So, as much as I hate them, and would hate to live in one of them, when its somewhere folk have lived all their life, maybe they don't know any other ways of living.
The irony is that as quickly as such 1960's high rise tower blocks are pulled down - equivalent, mono-lithic eyesores, are built along the Clyde. All completely out of scale with the area, and in my view awful looking.
So, will they be pulled down in the next 40 years or less - when they are no longer appealing to look at for the modern ways of building designs in 2040 - 50?
Maybe we need to be a bit more aware of the bigger picture here, and see these peoples reasons for why they want to stay ?
I'd be interested to know where all of of those who voted to get rid of the Sighthill flats live, i.e in tenements, detatched villas, 4 in a block, or the newer high rise and riverside developments.
Those, including myself who've maybe never lived in that kind of community of high rise flats may not know the advantages.
So, as much as I hate them, and would hate to live in one of them, when its somewhere folk have lived all their life, maybe they don't know any other ways of living.
The irony is that as quickly as such 1960's high rise tower blocks are pulled down - equivalent, mono-lithic eyesores, are built along the Clyde. All completely out of scale with the area, and in my view awful looking.
So, will they be pulled down in the next 40 years or less - when they are no longer appealing to look at for the modern ways of building designs in 2040 - 50?
Maybe we need to be a bit more aware of the bigger picture here, and see these peoples reasons for why they want to stay ?
Posted by: The X Factor, Glasgow on 3:41pm Mon 28 Apr 08
PP,
quite right.
I couldn't see any real discussion onthe pros and cons here!
If I lived there I would want an assurance on exactly where and how I would be re-housed.
PP,
quite right.
I couldn't see any real discussion onthe pros and cons here!
If I lived there I would want an assurance on exactly where and how I would be re-housed.
Posted by: Ian, Glasgow on 4:34pm Mon 28 Apr 08
At the end of the day, more people WOULDN'T live in that area as it is just now than WOULD live in it. I sympathise with the residents who don't want to move but the place is a bloody eyesore and needs to go
At the end of the day, more people WOULDN'T live in that area as it is just now than WOULD live in it. I sympathise with the residents who don't want to move but the place is a bloody eyesore and needs to go
Posted by: The X Factor, Glasgow on 4:49pm Mon 28 Apr 08
I should have added that the ET should get its act together and give us a clue re the issues. Instead it prefers to blow an insignificant story about posters up into a tabloid meaningless drivel.
I should have added that the ET should get its act together and give us a clue re the issues. Instead it prefers to blow an insignificant story about posters up into a tabloid meaningless drivel.
Posted by: iain469, uddingston on 4:52pm Mon 28 Apr 08
Probably why it was named sighthill !!
Probably why it was named sighthill !!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:22pm Mon 28 Apr 08
More like Sh1tehill, it was built on top of Charles Tennant's old site which he operated from the late 1700's till it closure in 1963.
The place should be cleared, along with the polluntants buried underground, and rebuild, taking into account possible canal exstension and resulting opportunities as a result.
With simple imagination, Sighthill could be a tremendous part of the city to live, not just for those in luxury flats that Miss PP speaks of.
More like Sh1tehill, it was built on top of Charles Tennant's old site which he operated from the late 1700's till it closure in 1963.
The place should be cleared, along with the polluntants buried underground, and rebuild, taking into account possible canal exstension and resulting opportunities as a result.
With simple imagination, Sighthill could be a tremendous part of the city to live, not just for those in luxury flats that Miss PP speaks of.
Posted by: paulab, glasgow on 6:05pm Mon 28 Apr 08
untill last year i lived in sighthill for 19years. i did not want to move but since i lived in fountainwell i had to. we have since moved to pollok where i got a lovley new house but i still miss sighthill . i stayed on floor 15 and the view was amazing you could see for miles when i was growning up there it was a lovley place there was hardly any trouble. it aint the same anymore but i know alot of people that were to be moved out didnt want to go im glad i moved now as its no place to bring up kids but it will be sad to see the flats coming down R.I.P sighthill
untill last year i lived in sighthill for 19years. i did not want to move but since i lived in fountainwell i had to. we have since moved to pollok where i got a lovley new house but i still miss sighthill . i stayed on floor 15 and the view was amazing you could see for miles when i was growning up there it was a lovley place there was hardly any trouble. it aint the same anymore but i know alot of people that were to be moved out didnt want to go im glad i moved now as its no place to bring up kids but it will be sad to see the flats coming down R.I.P sighthill
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 8:06pm Tue 29 Apr 08
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote:
More like Sh1tehill, it was built on top of Charles Tennant's old site which he operated from the late 1700's till it closure in 1963. The place should be cleared, along with the polluntants buried underground, and rebuild, taking into account possible canal exstension and resulting opportunities as a result. With simple imagination, Sighthill could be a tremendous part of the city to live, not just for those in luxury flats that Miss PP speaks of.[/quote]
It's just sad that every city in the UK seems to have it's run down, crime spots, under-invested in, drug-havens and where refugees are dumped, all being in furnished flats....
Point being, that as much as I hate to say it -people may love their tower blocks and want to stay in them indefinately... but the only real solution left for areas like Sighthill, is demolition.
The way forwards is proper, transparent consultation, and looking at refurbishing all the derelict tenements accross the city.
Where is the point in having so many boarded up tenements, when we have such a shortage of affordable housing.
Tenements have clearly lasted the test of time.
Invest in and refurbish them. Don't demolish them.
Maybe then the need to build so many new flimsy brick detatched houses would be far less.
Its time our people from all walks of life get a fair deal with where they live, and the complete wasteage of existing property is dealt with.
The numbers of homeless wouldn't be nearly as high, if we didn't neglect so many of our existing, long standing properties and buildings.
G.C.C. sort it out!
The Missing City wrote:
More like Sh1tehill, it was built on top of Charles Tennant's old site which he operated from the late 1700's till it closure in 1963. The place should be cleared, along with the polluntants buried underground, and rebuild, taking into account possible canal exstension and resulting opportunities as a result. With simple imagination, Sighthill could be a tremendous part of the city to live, not just for those in luxury flats that Miss PP speaks of.
It's just sad that every city in the UK seems to have it's run down, crime spots, under-invested in, drug-havens and where refugees are dumped, all being in furnished flats....
Point being, that as much as I hate to say it -people may love their tower blocks and want to stay in them indefinately... but the only real solution left for areas like Sighthill, is demolition.
The way forwards is proper, transparent consultation, and looking at refurbishing all the derelict tenements accross the city.
Where is the point in having so many boarded up tenements, when we have such a shortage of affordable housing.
Tenements have clearly lasted the test of time.
Invest in and refurbish them. Don't demolish them.
Maybe then the need to build so many new flimsy brick detatched houses would be far less.
Its time our people from all walks of life get a fair deal with where they live, and the complete wasteage of existing property is dealt with.
The numbers of homeless wouldn't be nearly as high, if we didn't neglect so many of our existing, long standing properties and buildings.
G.C.C. sort it out!
Comment | Read Comments (8)
