Cardross Seminary set to be saved after being bought by arts charity
Gillespie, Kidd & Coia’s St Peter’s Seminary, Cardross.
Gillespie, Kidd & Coia’s St Peter’s Seminary at Cardross near Glasgow could be saved after public arts charity NVA purchased the property from the Archdiocese of Glasgow.
The Grade A listed scheme, near Loch Lomond, was completed in 1966 but has since fallen into disrepair.
NVA now plans to refurbish the seminary, and its purchase marks the start of a two-year fundraising drive to find £10 million needed to restore the buildings and the surrounding Kilmahew Woodlands.
A masterplan is currently being developed with support of a grant from Creative Scotland and is expected to be completed this summer.
Angus Farquhar, NVA creative director, said: “The opportunity to purchase St Peter’s concludes years of speculation about the seminary buildings and marks the beginning of a new future for the site and the many people for whom it has significance.”
Developer Urban Splash was behind a previous attempt to redevelop the site but came up against a £5 million funding shortfall.
Related Articles
- Avanti and ERZ submit plans for Cardross seminary
5 February 2013
- Avanti Architects' plans for Cardross Seminary get £500,000 boost
19 April 2012
- Masterplan outlines 20-year vision for Cardross seminary
8 December 2011 | Updated: 8 December 2011 1:01 pm
- Children's charity seeks architect for HQ
18 July 2011
- Life class: Isi Metzstein
07 January 2011
- New hope for Cardross Seminary as charity plans competition
10 November 2010
Have your say
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign InDesktop Site | Mobile Site
Readers' comments (2)
Urban Splash proposed a ‘partial restoration for adaptive reuse’.
Habitual use of the word ‘redevelop’ to mean restore, refurbish, renovate, preserve, adaptive-reuse, and maintain, etc. is unacceptable, giving rise to its ambiguity as a ‘blanket’ term.
The 1990 Chambers defines development “...; to build on or prepare (land) for building on;...” . Re is simply a prefix.
Therefore “redevelop” is akin to rebuild, new build, construct, reinstate, reconstruct, etc.
Journalists can help to undo the ambiguity by taking the time to use a different ‘blanket’ term, i.e. for conservation related activity, not development.
You can’t use “conserve” as a blanket term either, since this term is also [even more] too wide ranging, since its definitions could include ruinate as well as reconstruct and reinstate etc.!
Good luck in finding the proper blanket terms for conservation – it won’t be easy, you may have to accept using specific terminology instead. Such difficulty is why “redevelopment” has been hijacked.
Wikipedia should be informed of the increasing misuse of the word “redevelopment” and internet dictionaries should define more wisely. I cannot believe how often I have read it [misused] this week on various news websites! Rise above the rest BD!
This is potentially very exciting, however I shall 'conserve' my excitement until the fundraising period is over as we have been at this point several times previously.