Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:25 pm
Of course – you could...... indeed should..., ask questions like this of any building. That's rather my point! I was only referring to high rise because of the fact that it was high rise buildings in particular which were being greeted with unrestrained ecstatic enthusiasm on this forum whilst any debate on their merits and demerits was being closed down on the altar of "better something than nothing". And I found that banal and depressing.
I found your points very interesting. I'm not sure I agree with all of them.
I don't think this building forms part of a cluster. A cluster is where buildings are very closely related to each other – and there is far too much space between this building and the other buildings that you've mentioned, with the exception of the Admiral building, which is more medium than high rise. I think this one looks pretty isolated.
Whilst the podium has a rough approximation in scale to its surroundings, the tower does not. It dominates Charles Street, where there are still parts which retain real character. It can also be seen from other parts of the city – for example, Cowbridge Road looking towards the Angel was a relatively harmonious panorama but now has this building sticking up. The point being that tall buildings not only affect the immediate area but also impact on the rest of the city in ways which are only fully appreciated once they're built.so I think that one has to look at "surroundings" in a much more intense and critical way – basically, look at the city as a whole very carefully, because the city as a whole is often affected by them
I think it's a rather sad day when one considers a bit of metal mesh to be special detailing. Even if one were to accept that, it is more than offset by the boring, tiresome predictable cladding which – as one person on this site has said – makes it look like a 1960s building which has been re-clad. Actually, it doesn't look far off a tarted -up local authority tower block. There may be consistency in the cladding, but no integrity.
The point about public space does not really apply here – there really could never been any, but it does not invalidate the issue when applied to other buildings; at least some admittedly rather feeble attempt was made to consider that aspect with the Raddison Blu (and to a degree with Capital Tower).
I also think that the relationship of the new building with the chapel is very unfortunate. It couldn't be more brutal, really. Looking from from Churchill Way, the facade on the podium is almost 90% cladding. Further, you have the black square box behind the chapel which dominates it both in bulk and height and also in its aggressive boxlike appearance in contrast to the distinctly un-boxlike chapel . Some form of accommodation (not in the housing sense!) between the two should have been attempted. Indeed, there could have been a very interesting solution there , but the opportunity has been totally missed ( or more likely rejected).
I appreciate some might say “how exciting” about this building.. But if you saw it in, say, Birmingham who in their right mind would say “ how exciting”. It would be truly sad if anyone did. And if you saw it in, say, Bordeaux ( a vigorous city), or Oxford, wouldn’t you say say “ oh no, they’re buggering up a fine city with tat ”. Cardiff isn’t Bordeaux or Oxford ( before anyone tells me) but the principle is the same . What we do have in Cardiff which is good is being buggered up by the equivalent of ponced -up local authority tower blocks ......dull mediocrity which we are stuck with for the foreseeable future.
Does anyone get excited about Altolusso still?
The one in Park Place is a truly tragic example, grossly bullying and discordant in style and bulk , pissing over a calm and harmonious ensemble of fine Victorian and Edwardian buildings.....effectively for ever.