The Wharf Demolition and Redevelopment

Things may have been improved a bit if there was a more linear street pattern, and if Lloyd George Avenue had been handled better as a proper street, rather than a bypass.It would certainly be more lively and attractive to walk down if it was narrower, had housing on both sides, and had little pocket parks, rather than the long linear planting it has. If more people walked it, it might then support another shop and a cafe or pub say.

But you seem to be falling for the age old misconception that planners decide what gets built.. in general they don't. They may adopt spacial plans, but what actually gets built (except for infrastructure and public schemes) is down to the private sector.

So on those points.

(1). There is empty land at Callaghan Square and Cardiff Waterside (and elsewhere) that is zoned for offices and is better located for office occupiers. I just don't see there being the demand for this sort-of mixed use dispersed developments, at least not for offices.

(5). Nothing stopping that. Doesn't seem to be demand for it. Council can't magic this.

(4). See my earlier post. That just isn't feasible with the steelworks there, and I'm pretty sure I would not want them to push the steelworks out so as to make a dockside a nicer place and a better location for a pub!

Like I said, I think the "mistakes" go back far before Cardiff Bay was conceived. And they are easy to spot as mistakes only with hindsight.

And I will take the case of London. Along the riverfront and where there were old buildings to use they are often used. But there are also similar examples of such low rise housing and cul de sacs in the Isle of Dogs and in Rotherhithe. These also stem from the late 1980s - from a time when London's population was just stablising after a long decline.

And London has a lot more "nice old buildings" than the Atlantic Wharf area had. Most of it was just railway sidings as any glance at an old map or aerial photo shows. The Glamorgan Canal came out of the Bute West dock (filled in). The little 'canal' there now is a fake thing built when they built Atlantic Wharf.

Now I don't want you to think I'm "shouting you down". But I do want you to think whether you are being realistic about just what was feasible when the Cardiff Bay plans were being drawn up... or in your expectations of the foresight of the earlier planners of the 60s who had to decide what to do with derelict docks.

Now I don't want you to think I'm "shouting you down". But I do want you to think whether you are being realistic about just what was feasible when the Cardiff Bay plans were being drawn up... or in your expectations of the foresight of the earlier planners of the 60s who had to decide what to do with derelict docks.

Some fair comments, but I think in many respects you’re missing the point. Let’s completely forget about retaining any of the old buildings for a moment and look at what the area was like c.1960. Referring to the attached photograph, Bute Street is at the bottom RHS of the photo. You can see the railway bridge and to its left.

Two simple questions:
1) Was the correct dock filled in?
2) Why were the existing railway lines not adapted in some way to provide a loop down the bay?

With regards to 1) Why not fill in the Bute East Dock (shown on the LHS) and keep the Bute West Dock (shown on the RHS)? It’s a smaller space, so you’d end up with more land by filling in the Bute East Dock. If you look at the attached Map, the main road down to the Bay was Bute Street. Why do we need a direct line from St Mary St, especially now it’s pedestrianised?

With regards to 2) I don’t think anyone really before 1990 would have seriously considered this. Especially since the 60’s vision was for everyone to be driving cars (Beaching etc).

So, forgetting anything about old buildings blah, blah (I only seem to care anyway), we had a regeneration project that fails in numerous ways:
1.Still no adequate links from the city to the Bay (the railway is a joke) and Lloyd George Avenue leads to nowhere.
2.We’ve squandered the opportunity to build a really nice waterfront around the old docks, because one side of the remaining dock has a road, rail and steelworks spoiling views and blocking developments. Clearly there was an intention to has some sort of waterfront living/development or was there some bizarre idea of keeping the larger dock "just in case" there was a reversal of Cardiff's fortunes?

Referring back to my previous thread regarding the Bay, particularly the lost opportunity to build a new station near Tyndal St. Look at the attached maps and see where the “Grand Depot” was! The land was there, the lines were there and it was the perfect spot for the Valleys lines to meet up with the Bay and the South Wales Mainline.

I do find it frustrating when some people cannot seem to see or acknowledge that some really stupid mistakes were made with the Bay that compromises a lot of future development. There's this, "oh well, it's better than what we had" mentality. Well I'm sorry, but Wales needs to shake that off now. We should demand better from our planners, architects, engineers and developers.

Back to my first post regarding The Wharf, I actually don't mind the proposed scheme and it's the sort of development that should have gone around the full perimeter of the Bute East Dock. I just think it's a shame that we're knocking down some nice buildings that are only 20 years because the planners got it wrong. Especially when there are large areas still to be developmed.

I think the problem with all this way of thinking is that the "Bay" as a concept comes far later than some of the big initial decisions you are talking about. The CBDC was set up in 1987. Bute West Dock was infilled in 1969.

Now why did they fill that in and not Bute East? Perhaps because it was closed first and was narrower? They may also have thought there was a future in light industry, and there was some handy ready-built land for this if they filled in this now unutilised dock.

Was this a stupid decision? I just don't know. I don't know the information available to them about likely future industrial trends. I don't know whether the car-centric view at that time was clearly bad.

I think with hindsight it is obvious that we have ended up with a series of decisions that led to what is ex-poste a far from optimal outcome. But ex-ante, could we have expected planners and developers to realise that "the bay" wasn't going to be an area of light industry and cheap housing, but something of a tourist attraction and focal point for Cardiff? I don't think so. Because without the barrage it probably would have been just such an area! And the barrage wasn't dreamt up for about 15 years...

And your post seems to suggest you would have sacrificed hundreds of well paid manufacturing jobs for industrial workers - a group hit hard by economic change in South Wales - to get a nicer Atlantic Wharf. I'm thinking you're not a politician... the Development corporations already faced some quite stiff opposition from groups that claimed they prioritised retail, hospitality and office development over industry... and incomers over existing residents. Any such action would have caused a huge political backlash.. and may I say, quite rightly so!

I think you need

My original point was that the Wharf being replaced is inevitable because it's not viable. The second point is that the buildings in Atlantic Wharf are ok and certainly better than some buildings in Cardiff of a similar vintage. My third point is that the problem with Atlantic Wharf is not so much architecture (Hliday Inn Express aside) but layout - it's not dense enough, east -west routes are not strong and the suburban cul de sacs are just simply wrong in that typ of inner city location.

If you are asking me would I have planned Atlantic Wharf/LGA differently then the answer would be a resounding yes. I think everyone recognises that the Bay is imperfect and that there have been some big mistakes from the 1960's onwards. But it is what it is. The question should be how do we improve what we have? Personally I think the new development with a coffeee shop and a convenience store replacing the wharf will be a move in the right direction. I think the architecture will fit in with the wider area and the coffee shop is - sadly - much more likley to be used by the local community than a pub.

The West Bute dock was filled in because it was very old (opened in 1839), poorly constructed and the side walls were collapsing.

The West Bute dock was filled in because it was very old (opened in 1839), poorly constructed and the side walls were collapsing.

Correct. It was hoped that the Oval Basin would be retained to house floating exhibits for the maritime museum - but that proved too expensive because of the poor quality of the build.