CardiffWalesMap

Ash wrote:The intervention is blindingly obvious so I don't get why people are getting so excited about it. Meanwhile the hotel block is ghastly, too tall and the plan provides no connection into the Central market. Of course, it's all indicative at this stage so I'm not too bothered.

I'm enthused about this proposal since it is a massive improvement over any other recent development in the Cardiff area. As you are probably aware, the Cardiff approach seems to be flatten whatever was there first. This is a significant departure.

jonbvn wrote:I'm enthused about this proposal since it is a massive improvement over any other recent development in the Cardiff area. As you are probably aware, the Cardiff approach seems to be flatten whatever was there first. This is a significant departure.

Why would they flatten Howells? They didn't flatten David Morgan's. Parts of Howells are listed anyway so approval to demolish would be very hard to obtain.

I am not aware that "the Cardiff approach seems to be flatten whatever was there first" as you put it. That's a very dated view of the planning policy the city has followed in recent decades.

The last important or attractive building I can remember being flattened is the Empire Pool, the best part of a quarter century ago. Are you suggesting we should have fought to keep Oxford Arcade or Marland House?

St Mary Street is a conservation area anyway (set by the council)

Ash wrote:
Why would they flatten Howells? They didn't flatten David Morgan's. Parts of Howells are listed anyway so approval to demolish would be very hard to obtain.

I am not aware that "the Cardiff approach seems to be flatten whatever was there first" as you put it. That's a very dated view of the planning policy the city has followed in recent decades.

The last important or attractive building I can remember being flattened is the Empire Pool, the best part of a quarter century ago. Are you suggesting we should have fought to keep Oxford Arcade or Marland House?

25 years LOL!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45965885
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... w-11149548
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8176937.stm
http://www.cardiffcivicsociety.org/2015/10/15/497/

The City centre is becoming increasingly bland, losing it character as a quintessentially Victorian City.

If a building is not listed there is literally nothing the council can do to prevent it being demolished, the owners don't even need planning permission in many circumstances. As regards your specific examples

1. No decision has been made on the Gaiety yet
2. "Splott University" was not listed, and the Welsh Government refused requests to do so
3. The CRI has not been demolished, in case you hadn't noticed
4. The York Hotel had been a ruin for at least as long as I've lived in Cardiff. Also, not listed.

In any case, the real threat to our architectural heritage is not the loss of Victorian buildings, which everybody now loves, it's the loss of buildings which are 50-60 years old: old enough to be unfashionable but not old enough to be "classics" worth preserving.

This is why we lost so much Victorian/Edwardian architecture after the war, and it's what puts 50s/60s buildings, particularly in currently unpopular styles such as Brutalist, under threat now.

(This excludes Golate House, which is appalling and should be demolished immediately )

There is no doubt that the city centre is becoming increasingly bland. If the council are not culpable, then who is?

What typifies it for me is the disaster Altolusso.

jonbvn wrote:There is no doubt that the city centre is becoming increasingly bland. If the council are not culpable, then who is?

Westminster and the Welsh Government - those who dictate planning legislation.
I share your concerns about blandless, but Cardiff is not the only city in this position. Planning is a market driven, not managed & controlled, process.

jonbvn wrote:There is no doubt that the city centre is becoming increasingly bland. If the council are not culpable, then who is?

What typifies it for me is the disaster Altolusso.

Councils can't deny planning on discretion alone though. There has to be a legitimate reason, otherwise permission will be granted on appeal and costs will ensue.

Do I detect an air of defensiveness on behalf of the council? I hope there are no vested interests?

jonbvn wrote:Do I detect an air of defensiveness on behalf of the council? I hope there are no vested interests?

Chill! No vested interest from me. Just someone who has a decent level of knowledge on the planning process. People can disagree without having ulterior motives