What could help, who could lead and how to tell whether it works. These proposals respond to the evidence; they are separate from the council’s actual commitments.
- Make the renewed square and Argyle Street work as one accessible route
- Explain the gap between housing investment and finished homes
- Make room for homes people can afford
- Target safety work where problems repeat
- Turn published plans into visible progress
Proposal
Make the renewed square and Argyle Street work as one accessible route
The reviewed transport report records George Square works and different delivery stages for the west and east sections of Argyle Street.
Public-space renewal is most useful when junctions, crossings and neighbouring streets work together. The dated report does not confirm today’s completion position.
Who could lead: Glasgow City Council.
- Start now
Confirm which sections are open and publish clear step-free routes through and around current works.
- Over the next few years
Test completed sections with disabled users and coordinate remaining junction and crossing improvements.
- Over the longer term
Maintain surfaces, crossings and planting, and review how the route works for walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport.
How to judge progress
Starting point: George Square and surrounding streets: Construction reported March 2026; current completion needs confirmation. Argyle Street walking and cycling route: West section construction advanced; east section planned in March update.
Measure: Confirmed open sections, access barriers resolved, crossing performance and maintenance condition.
Trade-off: Different street users need space, and construction or servicing arrangements can undermine an otherwise accessible design.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
George Square and surrounding streets →
Argyle Street walking and cycling route →
Proposal
Explain the gap between housing investment and finished homes
The 2025/26 review records delays in land acquisition, permissions and costs, with some occupied homes on unfinished developments.
Proposed response: Use a consistent completion definition and show what will release each delayed scheme.
Evidence
Who could lead: Glasgow City Council and registered social landlords.
- Start now
Publish the delayed schemes, named responsibility and next decision, keeping the two completion definitions separate.
- Over the next few years
Report approvals, starts, completions and occupied homes on a consistent basis alongside spending.
- Over the longer term
Review whether land and permission bottlenecks are falling and whether more suitable family homes reach households in need.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Affordable housing supply: 2025/26 delivery review: 2025/26 performance review published for September 2026 committee. Evidence dated 2026-09-29.
Measure: Delivery against the same definition of target, stalled-site decisions and suitable homes occupied.
Trade-off: Full use of a funding allocation does not mean every planned home has been completed.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Affordable housing supply: 2025/26 delivery review →
Proposal
Make room for homes people can afford
The average home price is £194,000 (July 2026) in Glasgow City council area. This is about £3,000 lower than the Scotland average for the same month.
Housing costs matter most alongside earnings and the number of affordable homes available. A local average cannot tell us whether a particular household can afford its home.
Who could lead: The housing and planning authorities, housing associations and developers.
- Start now
Publish the local waiting list, temporary accommodation and affordable-home delivery figures together.
- Over the next few years
Test proposed housing sites against affordable-home need, access to work, school places and water capacity.
- Over the longer term
Check whether completed homes reduce unmet need, rather than counting planning permissions as delivery.
How to judge progress
Starting point: The average home price is £194,000 (July 2026) in Glasgow City council area.
Measure: Affordable homes completed, households waiting, time in temporary accommodation, and rent compared with local earnings.
Trade-off: More homes can put pressure on infrastructure and land. Affordability requirements also affect development viability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: Average home price →
Affordable housing supply: 2025/26 delivery review →
Proposal
Target safety work where problems repeat
Recorded-crime figures cover the whole Glasgow City council area; they do not identify individual wards.
These are police-recorded crimes under Scottish counting rules. They cannot be ranked alongside the mapped incidents shown for other UK nations.
Who could lead: The local police force, council community safety team and relevant services.
- Start now
Check recurring places and categories alongside local police priorities and residents’ reports.
- Over the next few years
Test focused prevention and support, with a comparison period agreed before the work starts.
- Over the longer term
Publish whether problems fall, move elsewhere or return, and adjust the response.
How to judge progress
Crime evidence and coverage →
Starting point: Use the dated, complete periods shown in Crime and safety; keep anti-social behaviour separate.
Measure: Comparable recorded incidents, repeat victimisation and residents’ reported experience; never a single crude league table.
Trade-off: More reporting can increase recorded crime. Enforcement and support may work differently for different problems.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Proposal
Turn published plans into visible progress
3 named local projects or plans have official evidence in this collection.
A published plan makes responsibilities and intentions easier to inspect. It does not prove that funding is secured or that promised benefits have arrived.
Who could lead: The named project owners and council scrutiny bodies.
- Start now
Put the scope, owner, funding position and next milestone in one public place.
- Over the next few years
Report delivery against the agreed scope and explain delays or changes.
- Over the longer term
Check the benefits residents actually receive after completion.
How to judge progress
Starting point: The dated stages in Projects; unknown costs and funding remain unknown.
Measure: Milestones met, costs against the approved budget, and measured outcomes after delivery.
Trade-off: Delivery reporting takes staff time, but a launch announcement alone cannot show value for money.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
George Square and surrounding streets →
Argyle Street walking and cycling route →
Affordable housing supply: 2025/26 delivery review →
Connect the plan to local delivery
How the evidence connects to a proposed response and reviewed local work| Evidence and response | Who could lead | Related published plans |
|---|
| Make the renewed square and Argyle Street work as one accessible routeGeorge Square and surrounding streets: Construction reported March 2026; current completion needs confirmation. Argyle Street walking and cycling route: West section construction advanced; east section planned in March update. | Glasgow City Council | |
|---|
| Explain the gap between housing investment and finished homesAffordable housing supply: 2025/26 delivery review: 2025/26 performance review published for September 2026 committee. Evidence dated 2026-09-29. | Glasgow City Council and registered social landlords | |
|---|
| Make room for homes people can affordThe average home price is £194,000 (July 2026) in Glasgow City council area. | The housing and planning authorities, housing associations and developers | |
|---|
| Target safety work where problems repeatUse the dated, complete periods shown in Crime and safety; keep anti-social behaviour separate. | The local police force, council community safety team and relevant services | No reviewed project is linked yet. This remains a proposal, with funding and delivery to establish. |
|---|
What still needs an answer
Delivery costs, current service capacity and residents’ experience need to be assessed before choosing a programme. The time bands describe a possible sequence, not promised delivery dates.
Project locations have not been matched to official ward boundaries. No ward-specific delivery claims are inferred.
Costs, funding and benefits are only reported where the selected official evidence states them; blank fields are not zero.
Some dated project updates have elapsed target dates. A newer completion record is needed before changing their delivery status.
