On Sunday, 23rd March, three Wyndford Towers were blown-up – the fourth, closer to retained homes, being demolished slower. Malcolm’s final plea to the Housing Minister is below, with a link to our full Study’ In Praise of Sturdy Buildings”, as available on “The Drouth” website.
Picture; credit: Chris Leslie, as published in the Guardian on Monday March 24th, 2025.
WYNDFORD TOWERS - A FINAL PLEA
To: Paul McLennan MSP, Housing Minister
From: the Wyndford Residents Union and their many supporters
Dear Paul,
We understand that the Wheatley Group, using our taxes, funnelled to them by our Government, are to blow-up the 26-storey blocks on the Wyndford Estate, on Sunday. We have corresponded many times and we have heard various supporting arguments, supplied to you by Wheatley. Our responses are summarised in turn, starting with the two biggies:
1. The Scottish Government-declared Housing Emergency: demolishing 600 sturdy social homes, when you, yourself, have declared a Housing Emergency, is self-harm.
2. The Scottish Government-declared Climate Emergency: wasting 47,000 tonnes of carbon, when you, yourselves, have declared a Climate Emergency, is self-harm. We note the sophistry of Wheatkey’s paid carbon advisors, who say that the carbon is not wasted as it is being used for landfill, and trust you see why we find this laughable.
3. Adaptability by Retrofit: Wheatley have stated that the towers, when doors are made through structural walls in the same place all the way up the building, become unstable. We have shown how openings can simply be staggered, avoiding this issue; and that the plans adapt nicely.
4. Cost: Wheatley have stated that a retrofit will be expensive: however the figures include 20% VAT which a VAT expert has advised us will be almost completely reclaimed, or set at zero. By their own costs – which have demonstrably inflated the cost of retrofit – retrofit represents a sturdy saving.
5. Consultation: 1500 residents were originally consulted and Wheatley claim around 85% voted for the demolition. But 1. That was 85% of the few hundred that responded; and 2. No alternative was offered – certainly not a retrofit one. When you are offered £73million for a single option a return of around 17% “yes” is revealingly-low. In contrast, the Wyndford Residents Union ran a strictly regulated “People’s Vote” which returned 75% for retrofit over demolition and newbuild.
6. Popularity: Wheatly have, in the past, been able to rely on a perceived unpopularity of “60s” housing. But things have changed: people get the carbon and climate need to conserve not landfill; people understand the housing crisis and the waste inherent in demolition. We have never said that all high-rise homes need retained but these are sturdy, well-built and designed: architecturally-distinguished, with hundreds of years in them – as opposed to the obsolescence of contemporary replacements. We have the support of a huge number of correspondents, including, we think, a full house of Glasgow’s Civic Societies – more known for caring for Victorian villas than high-rise estates.
We think that’s every argument covered, yes?
Paul, we were both headline speakers, a few weeks ago, at the Scottish Empty Homes Conference. The whole Conference agreed – and you too, seemingly – that utilising Scotland’s 47,700 upwards long-term empty homes was good (so: using, not demolishing): in cost, carbon, social, housing emergency and regeneration terms. We ended up by agreeing that the world had turned, towards retrofit as the answer to all of these, and that Scotland would hugely benefit from a big announcement to make clear the pivot to retrofit – which would also, incidentally, show clear water between us and the newtown sprawl lot, down South.
This is your chance! I know you say that Wheatley has decided, but it’s our money, in your hands, and we hope you might consider what is the best use of it, on our behalf.
Regards, Malcolm
