| Body | Was chatting to a mate about the fire on High Street the other week and we got to talking about the Bruce Report of 1945, which I wasn't aware of until about a year ago. So many mental ideas in there about dealing with the housing crisis/shortage, overcrowding in the city centre and congestion on the roads. The idea of building peripheral schemes was pretty much adopted wholesale, along with a lack of amenities for the most part, which the bright sparks at the Glasgow Corporation didn't think might be a little problematic.
All those issues were undoubtedly very difficult to deal with, but in an alternate universe what would you have done? As much as I wouldn't have wanted to see large parts of areas like Anderston or the area around Charing Cross get demolished, I don't know how Glasgow's transport infrastructure would've been improved without that. Even building more train stations/subways would've probably required this.
The idea of schemes being townships would've helped the city a lot if adopted fully but that principle was only really applied to new government built towns like East Kilbride.
So, anyway, what would you have done? Demolish the entire city centre (except Glasgow Cathedral) like Bruce
proposed? Build a monorail? |
|---|