Charles Street Mixed Use Development with Tower

I like the idea of spreading out of Cathays but I still think the high rise city centre option is high risk. I suppose there have been no major problems with Ty Pont Haern but I don't know, do we really envisage the centre of Cardiff as a place for students to locate in their high rise apartments?

The facades are being retained as Charles St is in a conservation area and to be honest it's the least they can do.

Which is an utter farce when you consider that they allowed the Splott buildings to be demolished entirely. Honestly, what value does this add to the scheme?

From the renders, I actually think the retained facade looks quite nice. It will make the restaurants/bars that will eventually occupy the space look that little bit more classy and it gives the scheme a bit of character.

They left a facade of a building at Bute Terrace and put it into a hotel. They left a facade at the Bingo place that got burnt down until they got rid of it too

I like the idea of spreading out of Cathays but I still think the high rise city centre option is high risk. I suppose there have been no major problems with Ty Pont Haern but I don't know, do we really envisage the centre of Cardiff as a place for students to locate in their high rise apartments?

I do wonder the same thing myself, but I am conforted by the fact that sprinklers will be installed!

Ty Pont Hearn or Liberty Bridge, has fire alarms all the time, at all hours. I do wonder if the students there ever get any rest.

I like the idea of spreading out of Cathays but I still think the high rise city centre option is high risk. I suppose there have been no major problems with Ty Pont Haern but I don't know, do we really envisage the centre of Cardiff as a place for students to locate in their high rise apartments?

Most of the buildings proposed are JUST 20 odd floors high. I appreciate that's tall for Cardiff but it's tiny by world standards. Even the 40odd floor one that is planned is just an average height tower for some big cities. As long as our fire service are trained in dealing with these buildings, which they will be, then it won't be an issue. Each of the buildings will have security as well, these kids are really well looked after in these buildings and are probably safer than in some of the dumps of privately owned houses elsewhere in the city. Some of the students might have come from cities where they lived in high rises, particularly the foreign students.

It's not really the height of buildings that concerns me but the purpose. You had big buildings in the 70s like Brunel House and Capital Tower which have stood the test of time. And I would rather a bit of bulk than these bean pole like structures.

The main issue I have with such tall structures is that they are to be (hopefully) filled with workers and we don't have the infrastructure to accommodate them.

They're all dotted around roads that haven't been fit for purpose since at least St Davids 2, if not earlier. Anyone that's tried to get in or out of that area at peak times will know what I mean.

And talk about the fire service being trained - when an alarm goes off such tall buildings require anything up to four engines to attend even when it's a false alarm... take a building like Admiral - how would they even park up, let alone get there in rush hour?

It's not really the height of buildings that concerns me but the purpose. You had big buildings in the 70s like Brunel House and Capital Tower which have stood the test of time. And I would rather a bit of bulk than these bean pole like structures.

It's the purpose I'm on about. Why are they such a risk for students any more than a house?

It's not really the height of buildings that concerns me but the purpose. You had big buildings in the 70s like Brunel House and Capital Tower which have stood the test of time. And I would rather a bit of bulk than these bean pole like structures.

It's the purpose I'm on about. Why are they such a risk for students any more than a house?

Office workers don't usually go out and get pissed and then go back to their office with a severe case of the munchies, go into the office kitchen, put on a pan of chips on the stove and then pass out leaving the stove to catch on fire. Sadly, this is an all-to-frequent scenario in many halls of residence. Seriously, I kid you not! This is why sensibly-managed places install cookers that come fitted with automatic timers that you reset every 5 minutes or so to maintain the power, otherwise they cut out.

But regarding the build quality of these new projects, these new tall buildings come with (as a minimum):
- Their own sprinklers systems
- Dry risers which are linked to indepedent water tanks specifically for fire fighting.
- Separate fire-fighting lifts
- Smoke ventilations shafts to keep the lift and stair lobby free from smoke
- Stairs placed within a maximum specified travel distanct to all points around the floors
- Structures (in the case of Bridge St, a reinforced concrete frame) which are designed to withstand the effects of fire for a minimum of 2 hours.
- Design of key structural elements against blast loads
- Application of fire-retadant materials in the finished to prevent the spread of fire.

Personaly, I'm not too bothered about the nature of the structure, reinforced concrete structures are more than adequate. But I do hope that the fire services up there training to deal with the potential hazard of a high-rise fire if Cardiff is to go taller.

That won't be necessary if the fire engines can't get down the street or find somewhere close enough to park.