Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:48 am
Actually if an area was of good quality brutalist buildings with great streetscapes then i would think a brutalist building would be more suitable, though these areas dont really exist, though brutalist styles are back with a vengeance.
I have stated my views above, its the same view that many expressed about the student tower on park place in thats its massing is out of scale with the area, the materials dont reflect the buildings near by, the design is pretty poor for the area and the historic nature of the street will be diminished by it. This is not however reason to stop a development and money does the talking as with all developments, i am not naive enough to think that a desire to make Church St. more historical will actually make it so.
I have a romance for great streetscapes with cohesive architecture and areas of the city that have a sense of place. Ultimately i would prefer this part of the city to enhance its historical charm, and you would prefer they built whatever as long as its better than what was there before. Church street looks a mess at the moment, it feels neither historic or part of the Castle quarter, yet this is the oldest part of the city center and anything to enhance this i feel is a positive to residents and tourists.
I simply can not understand the logic that when building new buildings, no consideration should be given to the historic context its being built in. This is the mindset that resulted in so many failed post war development and why many British cities have been considered ugly for many years and is being addressed in many cities now (including Cardiff). This to me smacks of failed thinking that is now becoming old fashioned.