Key Scottish Modern Building, Date, Development, News, Scotland

Cardross Seminary by Gillespie Kidd & Coia Architects, Glasgow

location: just north of cardross, nr helensburgh - gillespie kidd & coia
1958-66/8; closed 1980

St Peter's College was founded in 1874 as a seminary for the Western District at Partickhill, Glasgow.

News Update – Nov 2007: What Next?
Various develoments re St Peter’s Seminary in Cardross, regarding the conservation study and potential developers. Avanti Architects have produced a conservation study for the Archdiocese. In recent months Urban Splash have been joined by the Marquess of Bute and now the Association for Cultural Advancement through Visual Art (ACAVA) in publicly showing interest in developing the crumbling shell of Cardross Seminary. ACAVA are proposing a Scottish Arts Centre whereas Urban Splash have suggested a hotel. Perhaps The Lighthouse's GK&C exhibition has helped galvanise more developers into action?

News Update – Oct 2007: St Peter’s Hotel?
Developer Urban Splash reported to be considering buying St Peter’s Seminary site for conversion into hotel, plus homes, with possibility of architecture competition. Quoted in BD the Archdiocese’s Monsignor Peter Smith said he was sceptical that Urban Splash would deliver: “We have been down so many roads like this before, yet no one has ever been able to make it stack up....We have been in contact with Urban Splash for some time, and no solid proposals have been put to us.”

News Update – Jun 2007:
World Monument Fund list of the 100 most endangered sites for 2008 includes St Peter’s Seminary, Cardross

Cardross - News
The aj of 140906 carries an article (pp.28-31) by Andrew Mead with excellent photographs by Christine Sullivan: we hope to carry some response to this in the next few days

Cardross Trust - Added Members
Early 2006 Letter to Archbishop Conti further down page
2005 Letter to Archbishop Conti at base of this page


The Seminary moved to Cardross in 1966 but is currently back in Glasgow.

Cardross Seminary is listed - Grade A - and was commissioned by the Archbishop of Glasgow in 1958.


image from St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust

Cardross Ruin

Maintain the status quo, stabilise, reuse or destroy?

The Cardross Seminary has featured prominently in recent press and we would suggest dialogue re this issue.
Previously I have argued in Prospect for a realistic approach to threatened buildings noting (for example) my love for the romance of Castle Tioram but fully accepting, indeed encouraging its reuse - and thus 'revision' - as a clan base. Cardross Seminary unleashes similar issues [though here the owner seems not to love their building as much] yet I have perceived little debate in the public arena.


image from St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust

In some ways the Seminary seems to be a forgotten building. Certainly it never featured in my education in Manchester and London though GK&C's Robinson College was frequently evoked and discussed. Glibly, GK&C could become the Mackintosh or Thomson of decades hence, but more seriously many see this building as the 'best' Scottish building of the last century and it is a strong argument. Whatever one's view of this powerful work that evoked Le Corbusier's later (Ronchamp) period [in some ways a similar progression to Corb from the 'soft street' of Robinson to the brutal concrete forms of Cardross] this is an important work for Scottish architecture, and for Scottish architects.

The St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust have clearly taken a stance against the developers and rather than dissect this approach it would be constructive to open it up to readers of this site for dialogue ie e-mails, letters: info@glasgowarchitecture.co.uk.

My view is simply that the 'big deal' has already occurred ie Cardross is so ruined, of such a specific type and style, and in what could be called a peripheral location, that the time for really saving it is well past.

The key issues for me are the 'building's path to ruination' and 'how to enshrine into law a formula that forces owners to try to work with parties that may take on a property', ie to oblige an offer to the market when an owner finds their building no longer affordable / fit for purpose / of use. That way no-one has an excuse and groups can work to raise money when sentiment is strong enough, as it is in this case.


image from St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust

I feel there is a general consensus that the UK listing system (not specifically Scottish) doesn't work so well, with anything from suspicious fires to flagrant demolitions meaning a listing can ultimately become worthless. Owners feel threatened by the huge costs of upkeep or restoration, but forced to the market we could save some key buildings instead of having to launch incessant save this and save that campaigns. Owners too would be more open about talking to specialist architecture groups and interests without the threat that they may seek to control their property in some way.
As it is, Cardross is a fading memory and I suggest we should look forwards to creating bold architecture for today, whilst occasionally enjoying the dank remains of this seminal work.

What do you feel? e-mails to info@glasgowarchitecture.co.uk


image from St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust

Related Issue: Castle Tioram
Historic Scotland has closed the ruinous Castle Tioram, Ardnamurchan, for safety reasons. The owner of Castle Tioram in Moidart, Lex Brown, wishes to restore it and live there, but Historic Scotland favour the building being conserved as a ruin. The castle is reportedly requiring around £25m of work to save it.



image from St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust

Cardross Seminary - Letter:

An Open Letter To The Most Reverend Mario Joseph Conti, Archbishop of
Glasgow

Your Grace,

The St Peters Seminary Building Preservation Trust has taken the
unprecedented step of securing your property, St. Peter's Seminary in
Cardross. We have repaired the fence around the Seminary in order to protect
one of Scotland¹s great cultural assets and because you seem unable to care
for the building. The Seminary was built by the Church in the Sixties as
part of its post-war expansion. You may be aware that it is considered to be
the best modern building built in Scotland since the war and a monument to
both the skill of its architects Gillespie, Kidd and Coia, as well as the
vision of the Church that commissioned it.

What you are perhaps less aware of is that it is now falling to pieces. This
winter a large section of the roof collapsed. Vandals have seriously damaged
a major portion of the convent building and the church altar. Repeated
vandalism, in addition to rain damage, means that the Seminary is on its
last legs. If nothing is done to the building this year, it will be lost to
the nation. Since the Trust was formed at the beginning of 2004, the
expertise it has offered has been ignored and it has been forced to watch as
the current estates department in the Church have brought this once
beautiful building to its knees.


Your latest planning application and your previous application to build
house beside the seminary and to turn the building into a consolidated ruin
have been rejected by Historic Scotland and now languishes in the planning
department. It seems that you are now faced with two options; to wait until
the building collapses or to give the site to an organisation such as our
trust that wants to save the Seminary. We have consistently tried to find
alternative uses for the building. In 2004 the Trust approached the
producers of the TV programme Restoration. The BBC expressed a clear
interesting in the seminary, identifying it as one of the strongest
contenders for last years¹ £3million prize, but the Archdiocese rejected the
Restoration team¹s approach to feature the building. We are not sure why.

Those within the Archdiocese that we have spoken to so far do not understand
how pressed we are for time. Your grace, we believe that the Seminary is a
great should be saved for Scotland and it is has become clear to us that the
Church is not able to protect it. We have asked Historic Scotland, who
listed the building initially, to persuade you that you won¹t realise the
value of the land through the normal commercial process and we ask you to
give the Seminary to people who can care for it before it is too late.
Yours sincerely,

The St. Peter¹s Building Preservation Trust.

This letter was sent to the Archbishop of Glasgow on January 30 on behalf of
the St. Peter¹s Building Preservation Trust. If you would like more
information on the campaign please contact Penny Lewis on 07817 825849 or
Tim Abrahams on 07796 266022.

St. Peter¹s Seminary was listed Grade A by Historic Scotland in 1992,
signifying that it was deemed to be of international importance. It was
voted Scotland¹s greatest building since the war in 2005 as part of an
exhibition at the Scottish Design Show.

The St. Peter¹s Building Preservation Trust was established in 2002, with
the intention of preserving the building for the benefit of the entire
nation.


Cardross Seminary - 1st Letter:

06.12.04
Dear Sir,

In general I'm not a great fan of modernist architecture but I feel that this example should be preserved as an example of architecture of a particular time. I'm dismayed that many people don't consider keeping examples of modern architecture and see them as merely carbuncles on the landscape. It's not the prettiest of buildings and this seems to be highlighted even more with the beautiful rural setting.

Ideally, I would love to see the college cleaned of graffiti and being used as an art venue/local tourist facility. Realistically, there's not much that can be done with the college, the location is against it and the land is ideal for executive homes. I believe the only way forward is to leave the site as it is and let nature take its course. Unfortunately, I think it would only be a matter of time from the developers building their new houses to the seminary being destroyed in some 'mysterious' way so that more land was available for development.

Yours faithfully
Emma Watson


image from St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust

Cardross Seminary - 2nd Letter:

08.12.04
Dear Sir,

Just why would someone be interested in saving an abandoned modern building that, apparently, no one in the past 30 years has been able to find a new use for? Emma Watson touches on a very interesting point about Cardross. In many ways the most relevant if the Seminary is to be saved and that is, why is it so important?

In all the discussions and debate surrounding the buildings, architects and supporters have taken it for granted, I feel, that the public must also appreciate it's significance. However, this can't be taken for granted.

The most pressing thing the new trust has to do over the next few months, is convince people in Scotland, who are already sceptical about modern architecture, just why it should be saved.

Cardross needs an advocate. A populist and communicator, someone who cares passionately enough to promote it in the press, on radio and on television. Like Gavin Stamp did for Alexander Thomson.

Yours faithfully
Alan Dunlop for Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop Architects


image from St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust

Cardross Seminary - 3rd Letter:

09.12.04
Dear Adrian,

Maintenance as a ruin isn't an option in this individual's opinion.

The building is clearly of some not inconsiderable architectural merit, but this in itself would not justify the significant strai on the public purse of making it safe. Being a relatively young building it is of course at a disadvantage in being seen to be of less historical importance than its elder peers. This is of course largely false, it does represent an important part of Scotland's (rapidly vanishing) christian culture, but I still feel that even a refurbished St Peter's would struggle to pull in visitors in any significant number. The question of vandalism (as evidenced in the photographs) and public safety would need to be addressed. Questions with no ready (or cheap) solutions.

No. Better then to put St Peter's to some productive use. Particularly when we have a developer waiting in the wings to take the project on. Now, I'm not in posession of the full details of the proposals, but I would struggle to find justification in turning them down. A drowning man does not pick his rescuer, provided suitable conditions are placed on the Altar room, clearly the most spiritually and architecturally significant space in the complex, specifically in maintaining it as a public space, then this is not an opportunity to be missed.

Yours,
John.

PS substitute "Castle Tioram" for "St Peter's" Vis a vis that particular argument.


image from St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust

Cardross Seminary - 4th Letter:
F.A.O. Adrian Welch
RE: St Peters Seminary Cardross
Dear Adrian

With regards to your comments vis a vis the seminary I would like to add to following:
Cardross. It is a seminal piece of work, a virtuoso performance by two of Scotland's best architects of the post war period. A building that stands head and shoulders above so much of the rest of what was happening in Scotland at the time. I first saw the seminary in the early 90's, several years after a visit to La Tourette, and a couple of months after having returned from being impressed by the work of Corbusier's disciples in Japan. Imagine my astonishment, that here in my own backyard, was an achievement the equal of these. Since that first encounter I have been a passion advocate for the building.

It has been three decades since the complex functioned as its intended use, three long decades marked by neglect, decline, erosion, and decay. During those years many unsuccessful attempts have been made to find an alternative use for the building. All frustrated one way or another, if not by the inflexibility of the building, then by the intransigence of one or other of the groups connected with it. All the while the decay continues and it looks as though history is again repeating itself. If, as Penny Lewis stated in her recent letter to the Herald, the Catholic Church successfully thwarted attempts to have the building included in the last series of BBC Restoration, then that is indeed disappointing. At least such a platform would have allowed the wider public an opportunity to appreciate this rewarding work. Mind you its lack of inclusion is hardly surprising given the Catholic Church's sensitivity to criticism, and their track record with regards to post war Gillespie Kidd and Coia work. The contrast with the enlightened climes that commissioned these works is revealing but doubtless the catholic hierarchy will justify this by pointing out the failure of the architect's detailing and the cost of maintenance and up keep.

All of which are fair points but I can't shake the feeling that the Church is desperate to be shot of something it regards as a liability and that neglect is an easier option than action.
Despite my admiration for the building I am beginning to come around to the point of view that you eloquently expressed in your piece. I first began to think this when Kilmahew House was demolished in 1995 after an arson attack. Most of the focus of present day commentators has concerned the Gillespie Kidd and Coia work, but forget the central component of the complex was the Scottish baronial mansion by John Burnet senior. Andy and Isi, after all, set out their building so as to form a courtyard around the original mansion, a romantic and picturesque move that belies their modernist rejection of history. Surely the element of interplay and counterpoint between the two styles and epochs was just as essential an ingredient of the complex's success as a design as the nave, the altar, the stepping terraces of monastic cells, and the floating classroom block? I have to admit, though, that it is a testament to McMillan and Metzstein's skill as designers that despite this loss what remains of the complex is still as convincing.

Perhaps it is indeed too late for Cardross Seminary, and it is time that we let it go. It has suffered such bad neglect and if the current plan is rejected no clear solution is in sight. Whilst I have sympathy with the trust and respect their change of mind over the current proposals, the reality is that time is running out. I do understand their feelings with regards to the proposed strip out though. If this takes place it is arguable that the building will lose what remains of its soul. However, the building, as it currently stands is in a perilous condition, and what is left is in such a poor state of repair that it's become a catch 22. If it is not made wind and watertight it can be only a matter of time before these features are lost anyway. Perhaps, baring demolition, what is proposed is the only way forward? Having said all that I would feel more comfortable with the whole situation if the developers published what they are proposing so that the wider Scottish architectural community can debate its merits.

Yours sincerely,
Niall Murphy


image from St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust

Cardross Seminary - 5th Letter:

I don't know whether this question has been asked here before but why do we
not have a permanent museum/exhibition which is a showcase for Scottish
architecture and urban development?; with models, drawings, photos,
reconstructions etc of quality buildings lost, never built, mistakes and
proposals - like the museums in Oslo and Stockholm where locals and tourists
can learn about the built environment of the country.
www.arkitekturmuseet.se/flash/index.xml
www.museumsnett.no/arkitektu...s/omnameng.html
Should the Lighthouse not house this kind of facility?
I was very disappointed when it opened and did not have a permanent
contextual exhibition.
Buildings like the Cardross Seminary could then be remembered as they were
(in some form at least) and their importance promoted to a wider public.
Certainly the Mac school has an excellent collection of models and there is
more than enough material around to, at the very least, form the start of a
permanent exhibition without prohibitive cost..... if there was some
co-operation from all parties. The architecture schools could even
contribute yearly with their dissertation material (the reason the Mac has
so many models) and might this also contribute to the research which seems
to be a necessity these days in assessing the quality of universities?
Much as I love Mackintosh, he is not the only architect of quality that
Scotland has had and I find the exhibitions at the lighthouse often lack the
depth or context a permanent wider exhibition would afford. It might also
give the Lighthouse more relevance to more people.
If we don't do it soon we'll probably end up with a Scottish museum of
architecture, in Edinburgh again!
...am I stating the obvious?
M

Cardross Seminary - 6th Letter:

Dear Sir

I personally did not feel that the stripping and stabilisation is a compromise, as I genuinely feel that this is an ideal 'use' (or a fitting tribute to the architects) for an otherwise unusable building. This structure could be as relevant and as valuable as the trees and flowers are to Hepworths sculpture in her garden in Cornwall.

Best regards,
Nelsonn

Copy of e-mail to John Sheridan - Developer Classic House:

Dear John,
As a sculptor who has now started working in large scale concrete, can I
offer my support for your proposals regarding the stabilisation of St Peter's
Seminary. What a marvellous venue for outdoor sculpture your proposal would
offer.
In it's simple, stripped stabilised form it is a sculptural masterpiece in
it's own right and a magnificent backdrop to other sculptural forms.
I currently have thirteen sculptures touring the countries cathedrals and
churches-Coventry, Tewkesbury Abbey, York Minster, etc., called 'Blind Faith';
however, I could not think of a better place to house or display these pieces
than the setting of the seminary.
As an artist and patron of the arts I wish you luck and any support in this
venture.

Yours sincerely,
Nelsonn

Cardross Seminary - 7th Letter:

Adrian

As a co-founder of Saint Peter's Building Preservation Trust, I have read with interest the correspondence published so far. I would like to offer my own point of view and to address some of the points raised, beginning with our involvement in the current planning application.
Initially the Trust welcomed the planning application. In the planning report, we were named as the Archdiocese preferred future custodian of the listed buildings and their immediate site. We had hoped to influence the direction of proposed 'stabilisation' through our involvement, but this proved impossible. Neither the archdiocese nor their agents exhibited the slightest degree of flexibility, denying those who feel passionately about Saint Peter's future from contributing their wide-ranging expertise to the formulation of the application. As Niall Murphy stated, the archdiocese did indeed prevent St. Peter's from appearing in the second series of Restotoration. We had been involved in a number of meetings and site visits with Endemol, who were extremely keen to feature the college as one of the three Scottish buildings involved. This was blocked by the archdiocese.
It seems that the general feeling expressed in correspondence published so far is that there is no realistic reuse for St. Peter's. Initially this may seem a logical conclusion to draw, given the number of previous failed planning attempts in the past. However, when you examine the individual applications, it is clear that there has not actually been any attempt to find a reuse in the past ten years. Instead, the applications focus on capitalising on the value of the surrounding estate through new residential developments in conjunction with the token 'stabilisation' of the existing college buildings.
This current application is no different. No architect has been commissioned to carryout a formal feasibility study to asses the market for possible reuses and the sustainable revenues these are likely to generate. In fact, no architect with any experience in working with existing buildings has been commissioned at all. Further more, the planning report does not contain any 'statement of significance' relating to the architectural merits of the existing buildings. Both this statement and a feasibility study are prerequisites for Architectural Heritage funding and would form the basis of any serious attempt at regenerating the buildings.
Contrary to what John states in his previous letter, there is no 'developer waiting in the wings to take on the project.' We were the Trust named to take on St. Peter's following its stabilisation. Having examined the details of the stabilisation and the financial dowry that would be provided to us, we are no longer willing or able to take on the burden of saving St Peters Seminary under these circumstances. While Cardross could indeed be compared to a drowning man, these proposals in no way represent his rescuer - instead, they will more likely hold his head beneath the water.
Is this really the best we can do? Here we have a building that represents Scotland across the world in numerous architectural history books and all we can aspire for it is to turn it into an oversized concrete climbing frame, using it is used as a pawn to realise a quick buck at the expense of our country's architectural and cultural heritage. I find this so sad, especially given the success of a many recent high profile regeneration projects - London has its Tate Modern, and shortly the redeveloped Battersea Power Station, while the French had the foresight to turn an abandoned Paris railway station into one of the foremost arts venues in the world, the Musee Dorsee.
This is what gives us continuity in our architectural heritage. Without this, what is the point of commissioning 'bold architecture for today,' as Adrian states, when it will be defunct and deemed worthless thirty years on. What client or financier is going to bankroll such bold projects knowing that future generations will have such little regard for his vision, not to mention investment? In the UK, we are fortunate that the Georgians, Edwarians, and Victorians did not share this sentiment. Not only did they bestow us with outstanding architecture of their own periods, but they also respected the work of previous eras. What will be our generation's legacy to those who come after us be - Mock-Tudor apartment buildings and faceless PFI-funded school buildings? Saint Peter's represent the very best of Scottish architecture, its design embodying the high aspirations not only of its client, but also its era.
I would encourage anyone reading this to obtain a copy of the planning report from Argyle & Bute Council to see for yourself why the current proposals are opposed not only by St. Peters Building Preservation Trust, but also by the Scottish Civic Trust, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, and the Twentieth Century Society.
It is all too easy to accept that there is nothing to be done with Cardross. Ultimately this indifference will be taken as acquiescence, and St. Peter's will be lost for good. Anyone wishing to actively participate or contribute to the Trust's activities should contact us though johndeffenbaughiv@yahoo.co.uk.


Adrian Welch responds:
To paraphrase John, we need not rush around trying to create bold new architecture if we allow good exisiting buildings (ie what is important) to decay;
as John states, the logical continuation of this is that we need not rush around trying to create bold new architecture if we then allow it to fall to ruin in the future.
I broadly agree but we should consider the many societies that don't have our hang-ups about saving, protection, restitution, nostalgia and contemplate whether our innovation (and thus the 'heritage of tomorrow') is not being stymied by a Janus-like countenance.

But, Cardross is a ruin.
We must focus on creating bold new architecture.
We should ensure what is best is not just saved but energetically used and reused.
This would surely be within a state-run framework that allows flexibility of use to provide continual care for what are consensually recognised as being the 'best' buildings'.

Currently most of the onus is on responsible owners:
but we all know owners can be totally uncaring about their buildings so why do we continue to leave it to chance then campaign when the system inevitably fails?
Surely we need to create a state-run legal framework that consensually satisfies both owners and those who care about Scotland's built heritage.

In the particular case of Cardross though, we do wish the Trust every success: if you can source a good developer then you will no doubt have the support of most Scottish architects. However, we must look at the long-term policy nationally so Scotland can more efficiently and effectively exercise control over its 'best' buildings - all of them.

Cardross Seminary - 8th Letter:

RE: St Peters Seminary Cardross
Dear Adrian
I would like to add my comment to the ongoing debate.
The original design of the Cardross Seminary is so incredibly particular to its' function that I can not envisage any realistic future use ever being found for the buildings. Particularly given the need to respect the architectural integrity of this category A listed building and the colossal cost of restoration.
The seminary has now been a ruin, longer that it was in occupation. I believe that the buildings have now achieved a status (similar to Castle Tioram) where a fundamental part if it's current significance is, as a ruin.
Whilst I share the concerns about the proposed strip-out (particularly with regard to the removal of the vaults etc) the fact is, that this is simply speeding up what is already happening. Leave the building alone for another 10 years and it will be a skeleton anyway. The issue is, that in those intervening years how many people will be hurt (or killed) whilst climbing on the building. I suspect that it is this fear (of casualties and any resultant litigation) that has provoked the Archdiocese to finally accept that they have to do something.
My main problem with the current proposals is that it is based on the idea of providing a framework for a future restoration, which I simply do not believe will ever happen.
Instead I think that the ethos should be 'consolidation as a ruin', as a centrepiece to the maintained parkland.
This would inevitably mean striping out everything that is beyond rescue. But instead of the proposed partial restoration and provision of infrastructure, why not recreate the more important architectural features (the vaults, the floor, the roof, the principle stairs) - not necessarily on a like by like basis, but in such a manner that preserves the architectural integrity of the buildings, ensures their longevity, and provides safe access thought out the complex. These 'recreated' elements could perhaps be carried out in accordance with SPAB principles i.e. as clearly identifiable as new insertions.
This way the buildings could be made safe, full public access provided, the architectural integrity of the complex preserved, and all at a relatively moderate cost.

Regards
Bruce Wright


St Peter’s Cardross
Murray Grigor - 240406

As cultural commandos, fighting Glasgow’s scorched earth planning policies of self-destruction in the sixties, Gillespie Kidd and Coia (GKC) built an international reputation for innovative humanist modernist architecture. The practice soon became internationally known for its expressive churches, schools and other religious buildings, to the eternal glory of the Catholic Church in Scotland. At least that’s what we thought at the time.

Cardross Seminary article in full



History of Cardross Seminary

The College was designed by Isi Metzstein and Andy McMillan, who ran Gillespie Kidd & Coia Architects, and who have held key teaching roles in the last few decades and remain absolutely key members of the Scottish architecture scene / establishment. Gillespie Kidd & Coia Architects were famous for designing the radical, brick Robinson College, Cambridge complete with 'internal street'.

GK+C's St Peter's College Seminary, Cardross may feature in the 2nd series of restoration, 2004.


image from St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust

After years of attempts to 'save' Cardross Seminary in 2003-2004 a developer (Classical House) came up with proposals for housing in the grounds and some form of stabilisation of the ruined St. Peter's College. The AJ (mid-Oct 2004) reported that Classical House was threatening legal action, after the St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust and the Twentieth Century Society publicly expressed concerns about the application. This Archdiocese planning application was to build 28 houses. St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust is made up of John Deffenbaugh with photographer Dan Dubowitz and Prospect editor Penny Lewis.


image from St. Peter's Building Preservation Trust

Glasgow Herald Article re Cardross Seminary: www.theherald.co.uk/features/28164-print.shtml

Links for St Peter's College:
www.hiddenglasgow.com/StPeters
www.daviesscoll.u-net.com/joc/peter/peter.htm

also by gillespie kidd & coia:-
buchanan st, 85 - 1970
cardross seminary - 1958-66
our lady & st francis school, 58-60 Charlotte St - 1964
our lady of good counsel, craigpark st - 1966
st anne's roman catholic church, whitevale st - 1931
st charles rc church - 1960
st columba, hopehill rd - 1937
king's park secondary school



Cardross won the RIBA Architecture Award, 1967

Scottish Architecture: best scottish buildings of the last three decades

Cardross Trust - Added Members
The board has been expanded to include Gordon Murray, Gordon Gibb, and Tim Abrahams, bringing a range of expertise and experience. Very good news is that

Historic Scotland have responded to the archdiocese planning application, stating that they
cannot support it and basically endorsing what the Trust has been saying all along, that their work is not in the long term interests of the buildings.


Letter - Jun 2005

Dear Archbishop Conti

As you may be aware, Historic Scotland have recently submitted their response to the
public consultation of the Archdiocese planning application to stabilise the category A-Listed buildings of St. Peter’s College, Cardross, and the associated residential enabling development. In its letter to Argyle & Bute Council, the heritage organisation states that it cannot support the application, which it believes fails to address the long-term needs of the existing buildings. Contrary to the current proposals, where all non-structural fabric will be removed, Historic Scotland advocates “the retention of as much of the existing structures as possible, making the buildings secure and watertight by repairing roofs and other elements of the buildings.”

Key to Historic Scotland’s position is its assertion that “Appropriate long-term reuse is likely only in a scenario where the full potential of the buildings and estate has been identified and promoted.” This is something that St. Peter’s Building Preservation Trust has explored over the past 8 months while the council have been considering the archdiocese planning application. It has always been our intention to commission a full feasibility study to identify a realistic and feasible future reuse for the college, and to carry out an international marketing campaign. Neither of these exercises have been carried out as part of the current planning application. Much of the ground work has already been done, with a skilled team of consultant’s in place. However, we have been unable to raise much significant funding, due to the ambiguous nature of our relationship with the archdiocese.

A feasibility study would clarify once and for all whether it is viable to bring St. Peter’s back into use in the long-term, but what of college’s immediate future? The council and various heritage bodies have been considering the current application since it was submitted in August 2004. During the intervening period, the college’s rate of deterioration has accelerated dramatically, with the collapse of a large section of the roof, while vandals have seriously damaged a major portion of the convent building.

In September 2004, the trust commissioned a report to set out the specific actions required to secure the site and to prevent the penetration of water into the buildings. This was compiled by team of specialist consultants with a track record in the conservation of twentieth century buildings, including those by St. Peter’s original architects, Gillespie, Kidd & Coia. It is estimated that immediate works, such as repairing the perimeter fence, reinstating areas of damaged roof structure, providing weather protection to exposed openings, and the installation of security lighting, will cost approximately £1.2 million. Without this, the college will continue to deteriorate to such a state that reuse will become impossible.

We are acutely aware of the prolonged and complex circumstances surrounding the college since its closure, and challenges that these have posed to the archdiocese. St. Peter’s Building preservation Trust is keen offer our support to work with the archdiocese, bringing to the table our base of knowledge and expertise in an effort to find an appropriate way forward for the college. Over the past 2 years, we have held talks with established leaders in the fields of architecture, engineering, and regeneration, all of whom care deeply about St. Peter’s future. Furthermore, we have been approached by several reputable developers with a track record in sensitive reuse schemes.

We are eager to harness this potential to ensure a thorough investigation of the reuse of St. Peters is carried out, in line with Historic Scotland’s comments. The future of St. Peter’s lies in teamwork and collaboration between the archdiocese and the trust. With so much expertise and support on offer, it would be scandalous if we were to allow such significant buildings to continue their decline. We would hope that you are able respond personally to the issues we have outlined and to clarify the archdiocese position in light of Historic Scotland’s objection to your
proposed works to St. Peter’s College.



Glasgow Tour

Gillespie, Kidd & Coia also feature on our Cambridge Architecture page

Glasgow Buildings : back to index

Comments / photos for the St Peters Seminary Cardross Architecture page welcome:
info@glasgowarchitecture.co.uk

Cardross Seminary Building - page: adrian welch / isabelle lomholt