PerthRanger
Active Member
Is there a market for a Rangers/celtic pub in Glasgow City Centre?Should open one in the city centre.
I've heard ancedotally from celtic fans that St Vincents pub was a shithole and shut down pretty quickly.
Is there a market for a Rangers/celtic pub in Glasgow City Centre?Should open one in the city centre.
I wouldn't want a pub underneath my flat, even if it wasn't a football/sports pub tbh
well they have about a dozen or so others to choose from in our city centre, so they are very well catered for, it would appear that's not the case on our own side for whatever reasons, our own lot seem happy enough just to frequent generic non football bars that attract supporters of both clubs at different timesIs there a market for a Rangers/celtic pub in Glasgow City Centre?
I've heard ancedotally from celtic fans that St Vincents pub was a shithole and shut down pretty quickly.
Auctioneers is more or less a rangers bar as is Oswalds I can’t think of many others I wish there was morewell they have about a dozen or so others to choose from in our city centre, so they are very well catered for, it would appear that's not the case on our own side for whatever reasons, our own lot seem happy enough just to frequent generic non football bars that attract supporters of both clubs at different times
had this before on here, go in auctioneers when the enablers are playing at the piggery or when their away game is on telly , and there's plenty of them in there, same goes to a lesser extent with the toby jug and the horseshoe, Oswalds is the only Rangers bar in our city centreAuctioneers is more or less a rangers bar as is Oswalds I can’t think of many others I wish there was more
I think SA is badly advised here regarding this as a business plan. An extremely busy pub across the road, Lodge Corkerhill doing decent business on match also, and a Sports Bar opening in the Stadium.
They were previously bars before.There's flats above the new "Irish bars" in the Mherchant city
It's not "excuses" mate. It's planning policy reasons.
Look at post #35 which quotes directly from the city plan guidance. Then tell me, if you're employed by the Council to uphold that guidance, what you'd put in your report about why you've just ignored what it says and approved the application anyway?
I'm not expecting to you to know exactly, but is it a recent thing?
Because The Granary pub/diner was a tram depot until the trams stopped in 1962.
The Italian restaurant; 'The Batttlefield Rest' just below where the Victoria Infirmary used to be and now across from the new building, was once I'm sure a bus depot, and that transformation would have came about in the mid to late 1990s.
For the record the one and only time I was in it, the food was excellent.
Was last in Auctioneers years ago when i was studying at COGC. 2016 time. Was like a Friday afternoon so no football or anything on. As i said previously, it's only really Brewdog when i'm in Glasgow City Centre. I do remember Auctioneers doing a good pint of Peroni however.had this before on here, go in auctioneers when the enablers are playing at the piggery or when their away game is on telly , and there's plenty of them in there, same goes to a lesser extent with the toby jug and the horseshoe, Oswalds is the only Rangers bar in our city centre
Its not about nearby residents concerns or complaints though. It's the policy. The actual written down, adopted, agreed, set in stone, rule that they're following which clearly says no new pub uses in existing residential buildings. End of. Fucking hell man.If nearby residents concerns regarding noise pollution, etc, were adhered to, then there would rarely be a pub or bar open anywhere near Glasgow. If you wish to believe the weak and selective excuses made by GCC regarding Arfield's plans, then fair enough.
It isn’t just about residents concerns. It fundamentally goes against the principles that the planners have to adhere to when giving or denying an application. They aren’t allowed to change the use of unit below residential from what it is currently to a licenced premises. It’s in black and fcking white.If nearby residents concerns regarding noise pollution, etc, were adhered to, then there would rarely be a pub or bar open anywhere near Glasgow. If you wish to believe the weak and selective excuses made by GCC regarding Arfield's plans, then fair enough.
I don’t know when it was changed to stop permitting new pubs to open under existing residential, but I’m pretty certain it’s been that way ever since I’ve been in architecture. So thats at least 25 years.
I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that it's partly because of the number of objections the planners get to proposed pubs under flats, or even proposed pubs in general, so it may have become policy due to that.So The Granary or The Battlefield Rest wouldn't have been judged on the present criteria. Fair enough. You know much more than me on the subject.
But from your perspective is there a reason behind this more recent leglistation? Because, the whole of the country, certainly in the WoS, is littered with pubs under tenements?
I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that it's partly because of the number of objections the planners get to proposed pubs under flats, or even proposed pubs in general, so it may have become policy due to that.
It's probably not an ideal situation (living above a pub), I guess they just don't want more.
Toby Jug.Auctioneers is more or less a rangers bar as is Oswalds I can’t think of many others I wish there was more
I doubt many people will even try - that’s what I don’t get about Arfields application. Most architects or planning consultants would have told him theres no point in even putting in an application.I'd hate living above a pub, so I get that.
It'll be interesting to see if the GCC enforce this rule consistently across the board?
I'm not convinced that will be the case.
The same applies to the Louden? It seems to do ok?Over the course of a year there might be say 25 match days
Yes it will be rammed on those days but there is only so much you can sell
What about the other 340 days a year
I would not be looking to set up a new pub in the current climate
Should the” need” for another boozer come into it?The Louden is nearby and we also have NEH for anybody who wants a pint. I genuinely don't think anothe pub is needed on that location.
Exactly.it would be a pop up pub like the Louden.Only used on matchdays when the patrons would be in the area anyway.The same applies to the Louden? It seems to do ok?
I disagree re the idea of competition, these pubs are often rammed out the door and if the pub is good enough then plenty of these potential patrons will look to drink in Arfield’s establishmentI think SA is badly advised here regarding this as a business plan. An extremely busy pub across the road, Lodge Corkerhill doing decent business on match also, and a Sports Bar opening in the Stadium.
Its not about nearby residents concerns or complaints though. It's the policy. The actual written down, adopted, agreed, set in stone, rule that they're following which clearly says no new pub uses in existing residential buildings. End of. Fucking hell man.
I tried to get a pint in NEH prior to the Hibs game and binned it, i was getting nowhere near the bar.A boozer next a football stadium owned a popular ex player of the club - nada wrong with the business plan.
Louden is rammed and so is NEH.
The crux of the issue here is they’ve seen it’s something good for Rangers fans and went “%^*& that”.
The City introduced a Policy decades ago banning any new licenses granted below Tenement buildings. I spoke to Scott before he put in for it the first time and advised him of thatThere are no valid reasons for Scott's application being refused. Occam's Razor suggests the obvious reasons why it was rejected. Its incredible that nobody knows how GCC operates.
From memory it was about 1990I don’t know when it was changed to stop permitting new pubs to open under existing residential, but I’m pretty certain it’s been that way ever since I’ve been in architecture. So thats at least 25 years.
Maybe but surely using a vacant property to give people jobs is good? Same with housing lots of “brown field” sites in every city especially Glasgow and the council agree to building on green field areas.The Louden is nearby and we also have NEH for anybody who wants a pint. I genuinely don't think anothe pub is needed on that location.
It’s tiny.Would been good just as a further development of the area, but having not been in, isn’t it a really small footprint?
I agree there's no anti-Rangers conspiracy in the planning department though I know it's full of mentally challengeds.Yes. It is the reason. There is no anti-Rangers conspiracy in the planning department. Ffs.
Basically what you are saying is we should listen to the merchant city residents because they don’t want a restaurant to show football, but we shouldn’t listen to the residents of Copland Road when an ex Rangers player wants to open a pub below flats in direct contravention of the development plan.
You are incapable of viewing the issue outside of a Rangers/Celtic lens. It’s absolutely mental.
I think its this you are thinking about and GCC did indeed demolish a listed building and wouldnt listen to arguments from Historic Scotland either who stated there was no case to demolish the school and according to them, it seems that GCC was giving Celtic what they wanted and no other arguments were being listened too.Just thinking about this set in fucking stone stuff.
Is it not the case that listed buildings can't be demolished?
I might be wrong and the memory might be playing tricks but I'm sure the school next to the cesspit was a listed buiding.
If I'm correct, it seems the GCC had no problems smashing their own set in stone rules to help the filth.
I think its this you are thinking about and GCC did indeed demolish a listed building and wouldnt listen to arguments from Historic Scotland either who stated there was no case to demolish the school and according to them, it seems that GCC was giving Celtic what they wanted and no other arguments were being listened too.
CELTIC'S bid to demolish an Edwardian school and build a club superstore, museum and other facilities has been given the go-ahead.
The proposals were approved after civic planners decided the arguments for retaining the B-listed building near the football club's ground in the east end of Glasgow were outweighed by economic spin-offs generated by the new development.
Glasgow City Council's planning committee agreed to the plans without dissent, despite one councillor calling for Celtic to include a roof garden in the scheme.
It will now be sent to Historic Scotland to approve or refuse the demolition. It is theoretically possible, although highly unlikely, that the Scottish Government could block the bid. Usually only structures of national or regional importance fall under the remit of Government ministers.
Further applications for the site are expected in the coming weeks.
It emerged during the meeting that the timetable for the scheme was already behind schedule and it will not be completed in time for the 2014 Commonwealth Games, which will see the Queen attend the opening ceremony at Celtic Park.
The proposals will see the London Road Primary School sold by Glasgow City Council to Celtic for around £300,000. It will be demolished and replaced with a superstore, museum, cafe, theatre and ticket offices.
The proposals also include the formation of a landscaped walkway from a revamped Dalmarnock railway station, past several key 2014 venues, to Celtic Park.
The building itself will be two-storey, metal and glass. Part of the old school wall will be retained as a "historic link" and anything of architectural worth recycled in other developments.
Historic Scotland had reservations that not enough was done to market the building and assess all options. It said the structural report did not support the case for demolition.
But the committee was told the authority accepted that the wider area would benefit economically from the demolition. Planning officer Blair Greenock said: "The council believes the case for demolition is necessary for economic growth and the good of the wider community."
Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell said: "This really is fantastic news for the club and is something which will allow us to completely transform Celtic Park, providing a stunning new public realm area for the benefit of our supporters."
I think its this you are thinking about and GCC did indeed demolish a listed building and wouldnt listen to arguments from Historic Scotland either who stated there was no case to demolish the school and according to them, it seems that GCC was giving Celtic what they wanted and no other arguments were being listened too.
CELTIC'S bid to demolish an Edwardian school and build a club superstore, museum and other facilities has been given the go-ahead.
The proposals were approved after civic planners decided the arguments for retaining the B-listed building near the football club's ground in the east end of Glasgow were outweighed by economic spin-offs generated by the new development.
Glasgow City Council's planning committee agreed to the plans without dissent, despite one councillor calling for Celtic to include a roof garden in the scheme.
It will now be sent to Historic Scotland to approve or refuse the demolition. It is theoretically possible, although highly unlikely, that the Scottish Government could block the bid. Usually only structures of national or regional importance fall under the remit of Government ministers.
Further applications for the site are expected in the coming weeks.
It emerged during the meeting that the timetable for the scheme was already behind schedule and it will not be completed in time for the 2014 Commonwealth Games, which will see the Queen attend the opening ceremony at Celtic Park.
The proposals will see the London Road Primary School sold by Glasgow City Council to Celtic for around £300,000. It will be demolished and replaced with a superstore, museum, cafe, theatre and ticket offices.
The proposals also include the formation of a landscaped walkway from a revamped Dalmarnock railway station, past several key 2014 venues, to Celtic Park.
The building itself will be two-storey, metal and glass. Part of the old school wall will be retained as a "historic link" and anything of architectural worth recycled in other developments.
Historic Scotland had reservations that not enough was done to market the building and assess all options. It said the structural report did not support the case for demolition.
But the committee was told the authority accepted that the wider area would benefit economically from the demolition. Planning officer Blair Greenock said: "The council believes the case for demolition is necessary for economic growth and the good of the wider community."
Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell said: "This really is fantastic news for the club and is something which will allow us to completely transform Celtic Park, providing a stunning new public realm area for the benefit of our supporters."
How much does it cost to submit a planning application?City Development Plan - Glasgow City Council
The City Development Plan sets out the Council's vision and strategy for land use whilst also providing the basis for assessing planning applications.www.glasgow.gov.uk
Supplementary Guidance SG4:
"Outwith the City Centre:
(i) Public houses, Class 11 and Sui Generis uses must not be located within, or immediately adjacent to, existing residential buildings."
How much does it cost to submit a planning application?
It's pretty clear with the above, that it would be rejected and to do it for a 2nd. time...
Someone is ripping the pish out of Scotty for a financial gain, by the looks of it.
Just read his post. And yes the rules can be broken when it suits a Scum redevelopment, regardless of the historical interest.That's a good point.
But as Captaincaveman's post tells us, rules can be broken if it helps the filth.
Apart from the fact that it would devalue their properties as it is much harder to get a mortgage on a property above a public house.Exactly.it would be a pop up pub like the Louden.Only used on matchdays when the patrons would be in the area anyway.
Hardly going to ruin their Monday night watching Emmerdale
Thanks for that, a brilliant find and blows the arguments of a couple of posters on here who talk about change of business or whatever, and rules set in stone, out of the water.
It also proves some of us cynics on this thread are right to be distrusful of the motives of the yahoos running the GCC.
They'll demolish something that should be allowed to survive and ride roughshod over Historic Scotland to help the filth. But won't allow an ex Ranger to convert a bookies into a pub? They'll then hide behind excuses about tenants and their complaints when all across Glasgow you could say the majority of pubs will be under tenements.
It would appear rules are only set in stone to thwart anything Rangers related, with this shower of natsi filth. It's high time our people awakened fr
An awful lot of paranoia on this threadJust read his post. And yes the rules can be broken when it suits a Scum redevelopment, regardless of the historical interest.
And again, rules are only rules in the hands of the approver. So I agree, it's very easy for them to reject his application.
Not if she lived somewhere elseMy wife would hate me living above a pub.
An awful lot of paranoia on this thread
She probably still would out of spite.Not if she lived somewhere else
If that's what you call it. Personally and as you are aware, there is a lot of truth in relation to certain applications being approved and others being rejected.An awful lot of paranoia on this thread
The policy is quite clear, no ' new 'pubs under tenement buildingsIf that's what you call it. Personally and as you are aware, there is a lot of truth in relation to certain applications being approved and others being rejected.
The policy is quite clear, no ' new 'pubs under tenement buildings