Central Square

No you're quite right Dai they are talking about the south end of the development which were always offices. So the 5 storey office point is a mystery and I personally can't see any change in images. So when are they due to start!

There are no major structural changes but there have been noticeable changes to the exterior design of the tower block. For the worse, in my opinion.

There are no major structural changes but there have been noticeable changes to the exterior design of the tower block. For the worse, in my opinion.

So the developers have taken comments into consideration and tweaked plans. So presumably people must've noticed that the finish was too good and they downgraded it!!? Anyway, whilst the original curvy design was more pleasing (in my opinion) I still think that what we are now getting (if they don't change again!) will be reasonably impressive. Actually compared to 'old central square' very good! - Hopefully the actual station undergoes those ambitious plans and becomes linked to the bus terminal building, although that may be a bit further down the line (pardon the pun!)

If the multi storey car park is demolished in january - will building commence march-ish I wonder?

I think this development would have been a lot better had it not tried to be any more than its name, a "transport interchange". Trying to cram in a hotel, residential apartments, a restricted access car park, office blocks and retail space seems to be proving far too costly to create a development of any discernible quality. It would have been far easier and more practical (okay, maybe not as profit-yielding) to restrict this development to a bus station only.

I'm really hoping the planning committee reject this but I imagine they've been involved in this project from the get-go.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning...

.. its too costly to try to build a mixed use development with office, residential etc..
.. so they should instead have built only a transport interchange, even though that would have been "less profit yielding".

Surely then the quality would have been even shitter, without more commercial elements to cross subsidise the transport interchange element?

I think this development would have been a lot better had it not tried to be any more than its name, a "transport interchange". Trying to cram in a hotel, residential apartments, a restricted access car park, office blocks and retail space seems to be proving far too costly to create a development of any discernible quality. It would have been far easier and more practical (okay, maybe not as profit-yielding) to restrict this development to a bus station only.

I'm really hoping the planning committee reject this but I imagine they've been involved in this project from the get-go.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning...

.. its too costly to try to build a mixed use development with office, residential etc..
.. so they should instead have built only a transport interchange, even though that would have been "less profit yielding".

Surely then the quality would have been even shitter, without more commercial elements to cross subsidise the transport interchange element?

What I mean is they can't produce a quality interchange, a quality office development, or a quality residential build because they're cramming all three into one development. Producing all three of good quality would cost a lot more than producing just one of them, i.e. a bus station only. I might be wrong but this is just my thoughts.

Swimming against the tide somewhat but in all honesty I think it doesn't look too bad. It needs to be viewed along with all the other bits but generally whilst not OMFG it is far from WTF. The southside may be the place for height & any wow factor

If each of the elements were publicly funded, your reasoning there would make sense: you'd be spreading a budget over a larger scheme than if you focused on just the one interchange element. But as you seemed to recognise, the office space and the residential space are commercial. They are designed to make money. They wouldn't be built unless the developer thought they were going to make a profit from them.

That profit gives the opportunity to cross-subsidise the transport interchange somewhat - whether directly, or through leasing or purchasing the land. Without that profit, the transport interchange would have to be funded purely by public subsidy. If they didn't increase the public subsidy to compenstate you'd have less money to spend on the interchange - not more.

So, of course it costs more to build the offices and flats as well as the interchange. But thats just one side of the equation. Those offices and flats are income generating - and will only happen if that income is expected to outweigh the extra cost. That extra income pays for the offices and flats and gives some scope to spend a bit more on the interchange.

Thinking your way you'd never build 100 houses rather than 50 on a site.. because the 100 would cost more to build than the 50. But of course you have more houses to sell too!

I suppose that's true. However, I think the issue is that the developers themselves can't seem to cover the short term costs of the originally proposed development so have had to dramatically scale back their plans, leading to, in my opinion, a lower quality development. Had they chosen instead to drop one section of the project, say, the office component, they may have been able to afford to produce the residential build and the interchange at the quality they originally proposed. But you're right, clearly the developers feel they can make more money from a lower quality development with more uses than a high quality development with fewer uses.

Also, since you spoke about funding, I'm amazed that in the article there is a segment which states the funding methods have yet to be decided. How has this not been done yet?

The planning app is now on the Cardiff City Council website. I have glanced through the DAS and I remain undecided. I like the office block but not convinced by the residential part. I like the idea of the plinth and the ground floor inside and out will look good.

I don't like the fact that the rear of the Great Western and the Travelodge will now be very prominent and I'm really struggling to understand the reasoning for the big gap above the plinth between the office and residential. I understand that that will form part of the car park but I really question the way that is configured. There is a vague reference to a roof garden but it seems a bit half hearted to me and it doesn't refer to who can access it (other than BBC employees using the car park presumably).

The pallette of materials also contain a lot of aluminium and dark cladding. I'm not sure how this will look when the sun shines or more commonly when it's pissing down with rain.

The planning app runs to 134 documents but looking at the DAS there seems to be more questions raised than answers given.

The planning app is now on the Cardiff City Council website. I have glanced through the DAS and I remain undecided. I like the office block but not convinced by the residential part. I like the idea of the plinth and the ground floor inside and out will look good.

I don't like the fact that the rear of the Great Western and the Travelodge will now be very prominent and I'm really struggling to understand the reasoning for the big gap above the plinth between the office and residential. I understand that that will form part of the car park but I really question the way that is configured. There is a vague reference to a roof garden but it seems a bit half hearted to me and it doesn't refer to who can access it (other than BBC employees using the car park presumably).

The pallette of materials also contain a lot of aluminium and dark cladding. I'm not sure how this will look when the sun shines or more commonly when it's pissing down with rain.

The planning app runs to 134 documents but looking at the DAS there seems to be more questions raised than answers given.

Hi Karl - do you have the planning app number? or a link please