r/Glasgow Tools

Title
Author	Scunnered20
Comment	You could keep those trees, but the development would be pushed back from the street edge. And as they're mature trees, you're talking setting the development 3-5 metres or so back from the street edge at least, which amounts to a not-insignificant surface area. This isn't the end of the world, but it would go against the city's preferred design code for new buildings, which recommends buildings touch up against the street edge where possible. In part this design recommendation is (in small part) to reflect the existing character of the Victorian built environment, where most pre-1920s buildings similarly touch against the street edge. By coincidence this is generally seen as 'good design' practise in urban planning now, which is the larger reason for it being part of the design code. As it results in the development interacting with activity on the street much more than if it were set back by some distance. The reasons for this are many and relatively academic, and you could go down a rabbit hole reading more about this if you want to. I could say more if you want but it's a relative tangent so I'll leave it at that for now. On top of this, for a private developer, this kind of difference in available surface area can make or break the financials of a development (especially when you're limited in height by other city planning guidelines). When you look at the whole concept overall, you're trading a few trees, which will soon be replaced, for new housing in a highly urban location which is itself well served by public transport. And which is replacing a literal car park. I mean, I say all this, but an alternative might be to move the trees elsewhere? I don't know if any of the opponents suggested this. That seems an even more sensible compromise. But then again, in the round, I don't see it as an issue worth preventing this new housing from going ahead.
Reddit Link	https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/110cvju/what_does_glasgow_need_help_with/j89j45q/
Created	Sun 12th Feb 2023 5:47pm
Status	normal ()

You could keep those trees, but the development would be pushed back from the street edge. And as they're mature trees, you're talking setting the development 3-5 metres or so back from the street edge at least, which amounts to a not-insignificant surface area.

This isn't the end of the world, but it would go against the city's preferred design code for new buildings, which recommends buildings touch up against the street edge where possible. In part this design recommendation is (in small part) to reflect the existing character of the Victorian built environment, where most pre-1920s buildings similarly touch against the street edge. By coincidence this is generally seen as 'good design' practise in urban planning now, which is the larger reason for it being part of the design code. As it results in the development interacting with activity on the street much more than if it were set back by some distance. The reasons for this are many and relatively academic, and you could go down a rabbit hole reading more about this if you want to. I could say more if you want but it's a relative tangent so I'll leave it at that for now.

On top of this, for a private developer, this kind of difference in available surface area can make or break the financials of a development (especially when you're limited in height by other city planning guidelines).

When you look at the whole concept overall, you're trading a few trees, which will soon be replaced, for new housing in a highly urban location which is itself well served by public transport. And which is replacing a literal car park.

I mean, I say all this, but an alternative might be to move the trees elsewhere? I don't know if any of the opponents suggested this. That seems an even more sensible compromise. But then again, in the round, I don't see it as an issue worth preventing this new housing from going ahead.