New tower of glass opposit the golden cross

How can one say Bristol has turned its back on tall buildings and in the same breath refer to a height cap?

The height cap which has been lifted - i.e abolished.

"I want Bristol’s skyline to grow. Years of low level buildings and a reluctance to build up in an already congested city is a policy I am keen to change. Tall buildings built in the right way in the right places and for the right reasons communicate ambition and energy." Marvin Rees, Bristol Mayor 6/12/2016

http://www.ideasfestival.co.uk/blog/festival-of-ideas/state-of-the-city-2016/

How can one say Bristol has turned its back on tall buildings and in the same breath refer to a height cap?

"Lifted" can mean removed/abolished/discarded if used in the correct context.

Let's not get bogged down in this . Whatever future policies in Bristol , there has been one to restrict the height of buildings; even more so in Edinburgh. I think that's enlightened. And surprise, surprise, both cities are sophisticated, attractive and rich. Cardiff needs to think this tall building thing through in more subtlety and depth, rather than adopt the banal attitude that tall is good. We could do something good here.

What do you suggest we do then? Build fake Victorian streets? Building upwards is what happens now, and what has happened for decades globally. That’s just fact. Point me to one modern city centre development in Bristol that is low-rise. I also don’t really see the attraction of Bristol over Cardiff. Its city centre could be literally anywhere in the UK. And I wouldn’t call either of the cities you mentioned “rich”.

You seem to have chosen the two best examples of “low-rise” British cities to make your point anyway. There are many low-rise cities that are equally as unattractive as any high-rise city. Tall buildings and good city quality are generally not mutually exclusive.

It's a whole host of other factors as to why those cities are successful. Height restrictions or whatever are generally irrelevant.

Yes, on average, Bristol city centre is much taller than Cardiff - on average. Plus, the comment from URBANO stating that Bristol has turned its back on taller buildings is false as you have clearly stated. However, im not completely sure where the city stands in terms of tall buildings following their vote to lift the height cap. I've only heard of one 80m+ tower approved, which is currently under construction.

I wasn't too sure, saw some stories splashed on the front cover of the evening post in recent months, didn't bother to look in much detail as was always in a hurry. Did a google, apparently, there are two other towers planned with one by Castle Park (22 storeys), and another that's meant to be a part of a new Broadmead redevelopment plan. Not sure on their current status.

Let's not get bogged down in this . Whatever future policies in Bristol , there has been one to restrict the height of buildings; even more so in Edinburgh. I think that's enlightened. And surprise, surprise, both cities are sophisticated, attractive and rich. Cardiff needs to think this tall building thing through in more subtlety and depth, rather than adopt the banal attitude that tall is good. We could do something good here.

I must admit I'm struggling to recognise this description of Bristol as a modern urban semi-utopia. They've built some really horrible crap since the war, and dissecting up the city centre with gigantic dual-carriageways has hardly helped either.

Yes, we all know there are some really nice bits, but Bristol is both older than Cardiff, and richer (and we all know where the money came from )

The other thing about Bristol and Edinburgh is respect for streetscape....the ensemble rather than the isolated look- at- me building. And in the former city , some serious long term tree planting , and in latter some serious public realm excellence...paving etc. Both of which Cardiff struggles with.

Bristol has some crap, of course, but they've retained not only a height limitation ( up to now) but a coherent streetscape. Edinburgh speaks for itself on that score. They are both interesting and agreeable cities.

And to suggest the only alternative for Cardiff is faux victorian streets illustrates an intellectual ghetto on this subject See ( e.g) Basle and the best of modern ( low rise) London. And why, exactly, is it considered axiomatic that faux victorian streets are bad......and by implication that Barret style out of the kit stuff's good.

To my mind, this forum could benefit from some more considered debate. It's getting very dull ....e,g debating which building is a few inches higher than another or which is going to be finished first.

I didn’t suggest that fake Victorian streets were the only alternative. You spent so long bashing Cardiff’s strategy without actually offering up any alternatives at all. You also can’t just blame the forum if your views aren’t shared by the majority. People are countering your points. Is that not “considered debate”? If this forum is so dull to you, you really don’t have to be here.

The other thing about Bristol and Edinburgh is respect for streetscape....the ensemble rather than the isolated look- at- me building. And in the former city , some serious long term tree planting , and in latter some serious public realm excellence...paving etc. Both of which Cardiff struggles with.

Bristol has some crap, of course, but they've retained not only a height limitation ( up to now) but a coherent streetscape. Edinburgh speaks for itself on that score. They are both interesting and agreeable cities.

And to suggest the only alternative for Cardiff is faux victorian streets illustrates an intellectual ghetto on this subject See ( e.g) Basle and the best of modern ( low rise) London. And why, exactly, is it considered axiomatic that faux victorian streets are bad......and by implication that Barret style out of the kit stuff's good.

To my mind, this forum could benefit from some more considered debate. It's getting very dull ....e,g debating which building is a few inches higher than another or which is going to be finished first.

I would tend to judge a "streetscape" by how walkable the city centre is. I'm an habitual walker as I dislike taxis and find "foreign" bus systems generally incomprehensible. I've walked right across Bristol from Temple Meads on several occasions.

Bristol is not walkable. Not enjoyably so, anyhow.

Cardiff on the other hand has a compact and entirely walkable city centre from beyond Cathays Park right down to the central rail line, and from the river to Newport Road. Even down to the Bay is a pretty decent walk. I can walk around Cardiff without taking my life in my hands crossing a dual carriageway or gigantic roundabout. I'll take that over Bristol despite their nicer university buildings and nice medieval street plan around Corn Street.

Let's not get bogged down in this . Whatever future policies in Bristol , there has been one to restrict the height of buildings; even more so in Edinburgh. I think that's enlightened. And surprise, surprise, both cities are sophisticated, attractive and rich. Cardiff needs to think this tall building thing through in more subtlety and depth, rather than adopt the banal attitude that tall is good. We could do something good here.

And you also realise that Bristol has a terrible lack of space, terrible traffic, and one of the highest house prices outside of London now, right?

Building across instead of up is pretty much unsustainable in every way possible - too much land taken up forces cities outwards, eating up farmland etc. It encourages people to use cars and worsens congestion and carbon footprint - just to name a couple.