Central Square

I think people on this board have flip-flopped on this a little. When the new design was first publicised, I think people were disappointed to see the ambition of the originally "curvy" design replaced by a value-engineered scheme. But I don't think there was any great outcry.

My main concerns then and now relate to the problematic relationship between the "plinth" containing the interchange and the two buildings on top - the apartments and the offices. On their own, I'm not sure they are that badly designed: the office building is somewhat boxy, but thats not always a bad thing; and the apartment building has a certain old school simplicity of shape. Together though, they jar, and have something of a 60s Milton Keynes-esque feel.

So I'm wondering if its this rather odd composition people are now discovering they also dislike?

Or is it there is more info about materials and they seem to be low quality? (Is it really alumnium for the apartments?).

The loss of the curved elements doesn't really bother me. To be honest, I was that thrilled with the original proposals.

What does bother me is:
1) They've employed a "signature" architect over a local one to produce utter crap.
2) The design is boring. Worse than that it looks cheap and nasty.
3) The design doesn't link in with the redevelopment of Cardiff Central. That was obvious in the planning meeting when it was made clear that the Planning Officer didn't know what Network Rail's plans were.
4) The design doesn't add to the historic areas, instead it detracts from them.
5) The choice of materials is poor.
6) The scheme will quickly date and it will be difficult to replace if much of the building is in private hands.
7) Providing a residential scheme without any parking is stupid. Why didn't they just dig a deeper hole under the site and extend the carpark? That's what they do in serious cities!

Must admit haven't read the latest documents, but I thought the aluminium element was just for the vertical bits separating the windows, and the main cladding for the apartment building was still going to be stone-like.

Must admit haven't read the latest documents, but I thought the aluminium element was just for the vertical bits separating the windows, and the main cladding for the apartment building was still going to be stone-like.

No, unfortunately they've replaced the stone element entirely with "aluminium spandrel" (the architect's words) which appears to be some form of cheap, corrugated metal cladding. I posted a close-up image on page 73 of this thread.

I was willing to accept the initial change in design from the original winning entry providing the materials were okay, and if it was stone (as was originally proposed) it would have been fine. But now, after reading their frankly nonsensical DAS, it's plainly obvious that they are building this as cheaply as possible because they know they can get away with it.

It's not just the appearance either. Reports in the planning documents show that the pollution levels inside the station will be 4 times greater than is acceptable. It's there in black and white, and wasn't considered by the planning committee at all. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

Not to mention that the bus capacity of the facility is grossly underestimated, and it is in NO WAY FUTUREPROOFED which does not make this a sustainable development. The south Wales metro will increase bus usage in ever metric (more passengers, more buses, bigger buses..) so this already undercapacity facility will quickly become obsolete.

This is straight from the report handed to the committee:

"The initial air quality assessment identified that the Short- term NO2 levels inside the bus stand area are likely to exceed the 1-hour NO2 standard (200µg/m3), Levels projected by the assessment are indicated to be a maximum of 846 µg/m3 based on a worst case scenario. Such levels are likely to represent a potentially significant risk. Mitigation measures to address the NO2 levels inside the Bus station in the form of a mechanical ventilation system have been detailed. However no detailed design or specification of this system have been provided to demonstrate that the system will effectively mitigate the risks to bus stand users."

And the committee didn't think this was worth a proper debate... This is a significant health risk!

There seems to be a lot of angst over the bus station.

I'm not sure there was a planning app put in before this current iteration - if there was I can't remember. I certainly don't recall there being a detailed planning app for the curved design which it would now appear was purely for illustrative purposes. Much of the angst seems to be generated by the curvy design being value engineered into oblivion but was that design ever really on the table? It seems to me to be similar to the complaints of the loss of green space when the Admiral HQ was built despite the green space never being anything other than a stop gap measure.

It terms of usability of the bus station I've never really got my head around why it is so important for there to be a bus station next to the train station anyway. I'd wager that at least 80% of Cardiff bus users board at the various stops dotted around the city rather than at the station. These stops are not being removed are they? Are tourists or business visitors arriving at Central Station really going to use buses that often? I'll leave it to others to argue whether or not 14 bays is fit for purpose but as a bus user in Cardiff myself I'm not sure it will make any difference whatsoever.

In terms of design I like the office element and I'm not entirely against the plinth. The retail on the ground floor will be a welcome addition to the city centre and will be covered so I imagine there will be a few A3 outlets looking to move there which will hopefully extend the city centre offering beyond it's current 'core.'

The PRS element seems quite monolithic but isn't out of keeping with the rest of the Central Square development. I'm not sure where the disappointment about the use of aluminium instead of stone comes from. No 1 uses reconstituted stone but I don't think the BBC building or No 2 uses it. The renders for what may go on the site of St Davids House also don't look as though they use stone.

A lot of the commentators on Walesonline moan that the bus station should be a 'statement building.' I'm not sure I agree. One of the problems with the Inner Harbour is that there are a lot of statement buildings next to each other. Sometimes less is more and I'm willing to sacrifice a few architectural bells and whistles to have a high density urban realm where the sum is greater than it's parts.

As for the canopy linking to the train station I can't help but think the ball will be in Network Rail's court for that one. If we wait for them to commence redevelopment of Central Station we will wait a long time. The DAS also mentions the Saunders Rd end being designed so that a canopy can easily be incorporated at a later date.

I would have preferred the curved design, but I'm not hugely distressed by this design.

I'm not entirely against aluminium as a building material. It's the specific type of aluminium cladding they are using that makes it look rushed and cheap. My angst, if we must call it that, is directed at the council's handling of the whole project, and the fact that they've let this through without any debate whatsoever when there are genuine concerns being raised by many, many people. These concerns include health risks, capacity, future-proofing, build quality, lack of parking - the list goes on. And not one of these concerns was sufficiently debated at the meeting. These are the people that are running our city and, to be honest, after watching the webcast, I was appalled. The chair shot down every concern as if his job depended on this being approved, and I'm not exaggerating. I'm sure somebody here can back me up on this.

At one point there was a statement that the bus station is meant for regional and intercity buses, not for the local Cardiff city buses. Penarth Haven has an aluminium spandrel office building. It is not attractive, always seemed to be a temporary structure.

I can't make any comment on what the planning committee did or didn't do as I didn't watch the webcast and I have not read the minutes of the meeting but I can quite believe that their handling of the project has been incompetent. However I'm not sure what (valid) issues they could have raised in terms of design, materials used, etc which is what I'm commenting on. Isn't that mostly outside the remit of a planning committee?

I would have expected these issues to have been dealt with at the outset with the council lobbying Rightacres to spend as much as was commercially viable on ensuring a quality building. I'm surprised the DCfW have not been more vocal. They have reviewed the project once and made a number of comments about what should be considered but their report is frustratingly vague. It was in Sept 2016 (which I think was before the detailed app) so there may be a further report due. They are usually failry influential in terms of design and they may have a lot to say on this current proposal.

Also I've googled aluminium spandrel buildings and there are an array of examples both good and bad where this material is used. Like everything else - brick, stone, cladding or render - it seems the quality of the aluminium spandrel will be key to how successful the building will ultimately be.