The document cited in yesterday’s article (‘How St Andrew Square was meant to be’) shows just how waffly and woolly the much-trumpeted ‘design principles’ for George Street are also likely to be. And how the process of 'establishing design principles' (Iain MacPhail’s favourite phrase) does absolutely nothing to protect our world heritage from tacky, ill-considered and completely inappropriate development.
Much of this is too vague to be able to provide any meaningful guidance for a proposed course of conduct, e.g. ‘the resolution of movement requirements for pedestrians, public and private transport’.
The conclusion of the ‘project rational’ (sic) states that ‘the design for St Andrew Square – gardens and streets – is a careful thoughtful, simple and elegant composition for the square as whole which recovers the original intent of Craig’s plan on one hand and provides for contemporary needs of the public community on the other. It is commended for consent’ (my italics).
What part of Craig's vision is respected by putting up hot dog stands, helter skelters and ice rinks?
It would be funny if it wasn’t so depressing.
Kate Kelly Well said Caroline Roussot.