Hotel and luxury apartment plans revealed for coal exchange

I don't think we learned anything new. But one things for sure the longer it takes to arrest it's decay the closer it'll be to a tipping point of being flattened!! It was said in the programme and I've thought it myself that if this was in the USA or London for that matter, it would be lovingly restored to its original glory, and considered to be an attraction to be proud of. Also surely a restored Coal Exchange would re invigorate the whole area and bring back to life many other fine old buildings that themselves are probably in need of restoration. This part of Cardiff has so much potential it is maddening that we are watching it crumble and then to forever regret it when it too late!! I'm not the greatest fan of what that liverpool company plan for the Coal Exchange - but it appears to be on death row and that could be its only lifeline?

I agree with much of that Paul - but location and land value are always a factor in whether buildings are restored or reused unless large amounts of public money are involved. A developer is far more likely to take a punt on a building in Cardiff than one in Ebbw Vale, say.

In some ways it's a pity that the "Save the Coal Exchange" crowd haven't been able to develop some of their ideas but the rate of deterioration is such that I think it would be a hell of a gamble to wait and see if HLF or other funding could be achieved. The vital thing is that if planning consent is granted for the hotel that there are strict deadlines in place for the completion of urgent structural and remedial works. Once those are done we can all relax a bit.

What an infuriating program, here was a person determined to show the bay development as a detriment to the area as it was back in the 50's, from when he remembered the place, and that the coal exchange is somehow being developed by the deceitful and scrupulous council. I also found the part where they were told not to film in the oval basin cringe-worthy, I thought the man who asked them not to film acted very professionally and the reporter very naive and incompetent not to have known this. The state of the coal exchange is very poor and i fear if the hotel is scuppered then there is no other reasonable plan to save it. Other than a hotel i cant see how the whole building can be preserved, maybe parts of it developed separately at the expense of other parts. To ask for a building like this to be wholly redeveloped as a community hub is ridiculous IMO as the community of which he showed doesn't exist, and the ones that do are disparate and too small to make use of it.

I think the problem is that some of these people don't live in the real world. Their hearts are in the right place - they care about the building, the 'community'.. but the cost, the finance, doesn't enter the equation. Its someone 'wrong' to think about this. Its architecture/history/community and "that's priceless". But of course it isn't. A council spending probably tens of millions on a development for "community benefit" would have to justify that to its taxpayers. It would have to trade it off against the other uses of those millions of pounds. Because it wouldn't make a financial return on such investment, it would have to treat it like any other "service" spending, whether on schools or libraries, or leisure centres, or roads. And to be honest it just couldn't justify spending such sums on such a grand edifice, which would serve only a small part of the Cardiff population.

I'm not a huge fan of turning the entire building into a hotel it must be said. I'd much rather retain an element of office space in one of the wings, for instance (that would keep a bit more day time footfall and activity, so the area doesn't seem quite so 'dead' as it otherwise might). But at the moment, there seems no alternative. Its not cost-effective to convert it into offices. Residential would likely involve even more ripping up of the interiors, and would make the central hall even more difficult to retain and use. So a hotel seems the best option.

Unless there is some millionaire out there who wants to make a grand gesture to the city?

What an infuriating program, here was a person determined to show the bay development as a detriment to the area as it was back in the 50's, from when he remembered the place, and that the coal exchange is somehow being developed by the deceitful and scrupulous council. I also found the part where they were told not to film in the oval basin cringe-worthy, I thought the man who asked them not to film acted very professionally and the reporter very naive and incompetent not to have known this. The state of the coal exchange is very poor and i fear if the hotel is scuppered then there is no other reasonable plan to save it. Other than a hotel i cant see how the whole building can be preserved, maybe parts of it developed separately at the expense of other parts. To ask for a building like this to be wholly redeveloped as a community hub is ridiculous IMO as the community of which he showed doesn't exist, and the ones that do are disparate and too small to make use of it.

Why would you think you'd need permission to film in a public place? Regardless of whether it's private prosperity or not, there are no signs up limiting use of cameras. How many tourists do you think are making snaps and taking videos for starters?

I take it that the property in question was Mermaid Quay - which is private. Their website says:

"Location Filming & Photography

Mermaid Quay is private property and commercial photography is not permitted without permission.

Stills Photography: £50.00 (per hour), £150.00 (half day), £250.00 (full day)
Location Filming: £100.00 (per hour), £300.00 (half day), £500.00 (full day)

Minimum fee £100.00.

N.B. all prices are excluding VAT, which is chargeable.

For more information about photography and filming opportunities at Mermaid Quay please email marketing@mermaidquay.co.uk."

I think this is quite typical. Obviously they are going to let visitors take photos and videos - its in the interests of Mermaid Quay to (a) be nice to their visitors and (b) have some free marketing/advertising.

With commercial property they probably think they can (a) extract some value from it, and (b) exercise some control about what sort of commercial photography/filming goes on at their property.

Now, I think the presenter of that BBC4 show should probably realise you often need permission for commercial/professional filming on private land. Its not like he's a complete amateur. At the very least it looks like they took advantage of a situation, and kept that in to show up the owners/managers of Mermaid Quay - what are they hiding? What are they ashamed of? Look at those corporate control freaks... when in fact its just some guy doing his job, enforcing the usual rules of Mermaid Quay (which are there for sound commercial reasons). Or worse, they actually set this whole thing up, expecting they would get asked to stop filming.

The whole programme was one sided. The inclusion of the scene adds nothing of real value to the show. It takes time that could be used to go more in depth to the issues. Or to look at the other perspective. But alas.. no. Wouldn't want that.

Aren't you supposed to put up signs and notices if you invite the public into your private property and which to restrict them from filming?

They have an annual photography competition around Meemaid Quay, encouraging people to take pictures? You're also for ever seeing students filming. Does any TV shooting come under the guise of commercial filming? What about news footage, interviewing AMs, etc.

Exactly as above Simon_200, I dont have much experience of this kind of thing but i know the filming of any private business or business owned area for broadcast needs prior permission. Even private photography and filming inside St Davids 2 can take the risk of someone asking you to stop or leave, there has been quite a few high profile cases of people being asked to not take photos in different shopping centers around the world. I found that whole segment constructed to try and show the council up, when in fact the area was owned by a private company, the same as the Coal Exchange. Also the whole argument about the community being destroyed for modern development and asking people what they think on the worst possible day for weather, also showing a picture of the building that was there before the maritime museum, which burnt down and was somehow used as an example of an historic buildings lost, this wasnt neglect as was argued here, and the photo of Mermaid quay was not where it was and probably the most ugly side of the development other than the loading bay. Try asking people the past 2 days when the bay and every restaurant and bar has been packed down here, people picnicking and people strolling around in an area that probably is not that close to where they live; i dont think many if any would decry it as a bad change! I feel there is a lack of understanding of how a modern community has developed, i get offended when someone puts my neighbourhood down, as would he i am sure, but I have a real pride in the bay and it only take weather like today to show others like it too, as does the thousands who live around the bay and pay a premium for it!

Some of those shopping centres have used overzealous and illegal tactics. Some have since suffered flash mobs of photographers descending to demand their rights be upheld on account of no notices being displayed.

There is no requirement whatsoever to display a notice prohibiting the use of photography. Private property is private property. So whether it be a shop, concert hall, office building, school, or private residence, the owners or agents have every right to ask you to stop photographing.. or leave. If you do not do either, they can withdraw your permission to be there so that in effect you are trespassing.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photograp ... dings.html

I think most people will take a common sense approach to it. Most owners/agents will let people take videos and photos - it can be free advertising/marketing. On the other hand, most people doing commercial work will probably know they should seek permission. In this instance it was just cheap point scoring in a shoddy TV show.

I mean where were the practical solutions to the under-occupation of old buildings in the Bay? (It featured the old bank, post office and Cory's building too). Are they all to be refurbed and brought back into occupation at public expense and subsidy? Should permission for new builds nearby be refused until these buildings are occupied?

It was just a poorly constructed rant about times changing, areas falling into decline and being regenerated with more modern needs in mind.. etc.