It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:16 am


Central Square

if it's about Cardiff.. Sport, Entertainment, Transportation, Business, Development Projects, Leisure, Eating, Drinking, Nightlife, Shopping, Train Spotting! etc.. then we want it here!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sweetfeet

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:46 pm

Re: Central Square

PostWed May 10, 2017 7:41 pm

I'm with Karl. A public body like HMRC was never going to sign up for anything extravagant, especially as this move is part of a central cost-cutting exercise. Also, while I like tall buildings, I'm not sure we can say they prove Cardiff to be ambitious when we've got the whole of the south side of Callaghan Square and other fairly prime plots lying vacant. Far better, in my view, for us to continue to concentrate on quality mid-rise in the short term and let tall buildings emerge organically - where pressure on land and demand for space means there is no alternative.

Incidentally, I came across this article which suggests that L&G's involvement in Central Square has been a key factor in HRMC's decision to locate there, rather than at Bridge street or CQ. The article also mentions a figure of 300k sq ft which might suggest that they are indeed going to be joined by another U.K. Govt dept. Link here: http://www.costar.co.uk/en/assets/news/2017/May/LG-in-talks-for-major-govt-hubs-investment/
Offline

Peiriannydd

  • Posts: 552
  • Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 9:12 pm

Re: Central Square

PostWed May 10, 2017 8:48 pm

I stand by my comments about thinking big and also that Cardiff needs a variety of developments across the cost spectrum. But I honestly don't understand how people can be disappointed with this building!

It's simple, it has nice clear straight lines, doesn't overpower neighbouring buildings and looks like it'll be clad with quality materials (glass, reconstituted stone and GRC). All in all, it's a very nice mid-rise building that will age well and add a lot to that part of Cardiff. No. 1 Central Square is similar.

Yes, the Bus Station is a disappointment and I hope something is done there, but overall I think Rightacres are doing a pretty good job with this development. The quality is significantly better than Capital Quarter (rain screen cladding shit!) or developments in nearby Bristol!

Their recent office on Dumballs Road is similarly of high quality and I'm glad that they are teaming up with Brains to help redevelop the brewery site. I'm hoping the quality will continue there and that Network Rail will come to the party and build a nice grand South entrance to the Central Station.
Offline

Cardiff

  • Posts: 253
  • Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 7:48 am

Re: Central Square

PostWed May 10, 2017 11:18 pm

Its bland and inoffensive at best and at worst a building that will be knocked down in 20-30 years.

Image

other than similar tones to 1 capital square (which i am sure will change down the planning process) it doesnt have any design features of the other buildings, its seems value engineered to the max already. It just seems 2 boxes with a roof structure on one. The render is also massively deceiving in terms of scale and space.

Compared to Chamberlain square Birmingham

Image

Wellington place Leeds

Image

The 2 office developments on St Peters square Manchester

Image

You really cant say the above Cardiff scheme is anything but poor, much like the bus interchange, and probalby for the smae reason. Now i love the idea of teh square and public space, but who wants to spend time next to bland buildings?
Last edited by Cardiff on Wed May 10, 2017 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Online

LocalLurker

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Central Square

PostWed May 10, 2017 11:19 pm

It looks similar to Admiral HQ which is no bad thing but it doesn't have that wow factor you get from a taller tower. Skyscrapers portray a confident, ambitious City and although we are getting there with some developments, I am a little underwhelmed with the wasted opportunity here. High hopes from initial renders syndrome strikes again.
Offline

redragon

  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:31 pm

Re: Central Square

PostThu May 11, 2017 8:34 am

Who do you think judges a city on the number of skyscrapers it has? That is a really, really poor argument to ruin the skyline of. A city and provide a dark, cold, windy microclimate at street level with poor integration with the public realm. No one really admires these buildings apart from some companies that may let floor space within and they certainly don't attract new businesses! There is far more consideration in investing in a place than how tall a few poor quality buildings are. Cardiff's rendered and clad tall buildings are actually cringeworthy.
Offline

Cardiff

  • Posts: 253
  • Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 7:48 am

Re: Central Square

PostThu May 11, 2017 10:26 am

Tall buildings are a symbol of land value, the higher the value the more the developer needs to get out of it and hence the taller the building. Tall buildings are a symbol of wealth, as you state Cardiffs current tall buildings dont convey our land is very valuable so why invest here.
Offline

RandomComment

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:50 pm

Re: Central Square

PostThu May 11, 2017 11:52 am

Cardiff wrote:Tall buildings are a symbol of land value, the higher the value the more the developer needs to get out of it and hence the taller the building. Tall buildings are a symbol of wealth, as you state Cardiffs current tall buildings dont convey our land is very valuable so why invest here.


I think you've got your reasoning backwards here. Tall buildings do reflect high land values. Its only profitable to build tall when its the only option in an area with high demand for space (reflected in land values). The act of building tall isn't what drives land value or investment though. We can't fool people that we're a "valuable" place to invest in by building a couple of tall buildings. They'd just suck up public subsidy (either sitting empty or being rented at below-cost rents).
Offline
User avatar

Jantra

  • Posts: 967
  • Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:53 pm
  • Location: Penarth

Re: Central Square

PostThu May 11, 2017 11:54 am

redragon wrote:Who do you think judges a city on the number of skyscrapers it has? That is a really, really poor argument to ruin the skyline of. A city and provide a dark, cold, windy microclimate at street level with poor integration with the public realm. No one really admires these buildings apart from some companies that may let floor space within and they certainly don't attract new businesses! There is far more consideration in investing in a place than how tall a few poor quality buildings are. Cardiff's rendered and clad tall buildings are actually cringeworthy.


oh come on, Berlin and Edinburgh are world famous for being places no one ever wants to visit or do business with and that is due to the lack of skyscrapers alone. however, Pyongyang, with its many many high rises, are having to turn people away....
I'd rather be no one than someone with no one.
Offline

RandomComment

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:50 pm

Re: Central Square

PostThu May 11, 2017 12:01 pm

Regarding the developments in Brum, Leeds, MCR.

The Brum one is basically a curved version of the Cardiff one. Curves reduce the efficiency of space utilisation so not surprised a public sector occupier wasn't too keen on curves.

The Manchester one has a bit of fretwork on one facade but otherwise is fairly similar to the Cardiff building.

The Leeds one is more interesting, I admit. But again, if you are going for a large public sector occupier you're going to want an efficient design and stepped buildings like that (which require more height, core facilities taking up a higher share of overall space) don't deliver that.

Would Cardiff get better quality buildings with more prestigious private sector occupiers? Yes. But we lack the big HQ or large branch offices of the sort of tech, finance (and I'm not counting admiral here, which is mostly a call centre!), professional services etc, that are willing and able to pay for such buildings.

With this in mind, I think simple buildings (to maximise efficiency) with high quality materials is what we should be aiming for. Better than buildings that try too hard on design but are let down by poor materials.
Offline

Karl

  • Posts: 379
  • Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:35 pm

Re: Central Square

PostThu May 11, 2017 12:28 pm

I'm not seeing the huge difference in the buildings being built in Mcr, Leeds and Brum. They all seem to be a similar height, design and materials. The one in Mcr has the fancy trellis and the one in Leeds has a sloping roof, both of which have the potential to look horrendously dated in a few short years. Lets also remember that Mcr, Brum and Leeds are the biggest cities/office markets in England outside London.
PreviousNext

Return to Cardiff Wales Map forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], LocalLurker and 4 guests