Church St development

Something like this would have been nicer, more in keeping with the historical nature of the area than the modern building we are getting

My GOD!

Does any one around here actually have a real interest in architecture?
( apart from the point that st johns church is not ancient greek in style )
You do realise there is no such thing as "keeping with the historical nature of the/an area" . By doing such all you are doing is try to copy some visual aspects of a buildings buildings at an arbitrary point in time.Buildings from 500 years ago where constructed in a different way and this effected their visual aesthetics. Copying these buildings is not good architecture.
Good architecture is building to suit the "now" in the best techniques and using the best/most suitable materials possible.

Also Imagine the designer of those ancient buildings you are trying to emulate had done the same, coped what was already there? All buildings would now just be caves....

I think good architecture reflects the surroundings and provides a usable building for modern businesses. While i dont think the exact building above should be built, i do think that a building with some architectural style that reflects the historic nature of the area is important. Effectively we are getting a modern version of what was there before, and equally in a few years time it will also be demolished and replaced as it doesnt fit in with the historical style of the other buildings. Its a gateway building to St Johns street and takes up most of one side of the street, similarly the awful Coop bank buildign the other end of the street.

Similar examples are those on St Marys street, they stand out because they are not of an historical style that fits with the street which is mostly decorative facades.

These recent example from Frankfurts reconstruction show how an old style can be modernized,



Where would you rather sit an eat, this:



Or this (also recently built):

I genuinely prefer the proposed build (in this context). If it’s made from a similar material to the Maldron/Clayton hotel it will look decent. I don’t remember there being nearly as much disapproval on here when it was originally revealed.

Likewise, it's bland, but there you go.

Does anyone remember what was there before the current building? It certainly wasn't three storey merchant houses or a pillared market place. I'm guessing here, but it was probably two storey terrace housing similar to the south side of Caroline Street.

Let's get real. Prior to the 19th century Cardiff was a small market town. The city is a largely Victorian creation and pretending it was some sort of Hanseatic League megaport or Cotswolds country seat are just bonkers fantasies.

Likewise, it's bland, but there you go.

Does anyone remember what was there before the current building? It certainly wasn't three storey merchant houses or a pillared market place. I'm guessing here, but it was probably two storey terrace housing similar to the south side of Caroline Street.

Let's get real. Prior to the 19th century Cardiff was a small market town. The city is a largely Victorian creation and pretending it was some sort of Hanseatic League megaport or Cotswolds country seat are just bonkers fantasies.

Yep to all the above.
Thinking we have to reference random points in history ( real or imagined ) for our new buildings doesn't make sense to me at all.

I think Cardiff is a very modern city with a central historical core that is quite small. I think any opportunity to embellish it or make it seem more historic can only be a good thing. One of the things people expect from a capital city is an impressive historical center, as nice as the new developments are on Tyndal street and central square they are not what tourists come to Cardiff for or not the areas most would go to in other cities.

Is it architectural snobbery that prevents this in the UK?

I dont think anyone would miss loosing the car park on Westgate street for a reconstruction of the fire station it replaced, what if the replacement was of a similar character to the apartments opposite? Would this also not be acceptable?

Why is making a building fit in architecturally with its surrounding so laughable Cardiffian?

Is it going to be the same materials as Clayton/Sleepers Cen?

You do realise there is no such thing as "keeping with the historical nature of the/an area"

Why is there not? Other cities do this and are considered more attractive and desirable, wouldnt Castle street/Duke street be considered more attractive and desirable is the buildings were of a more ornate quality. Doesnt the Rummer tavern fit more architectural to this area than Revolution? For such an important street in Cardiff wouldnt you prefer to see the Revolution site have a more historical 'looking' building on it? To "suit the now" should to take on what the area looks like now.

It is something i have pondered when you see old photos but who would fund building old buildings for the sake of it

The private sector aren't going to pay 5x as much as they need to to get a building that resembles something that used to be there.

And do we really want the public sector spending tax payers money on building old buildings when they should be funding NHS, education, defence etc.

The only only one i can think off in this country was a recent completed building on the Holborn viaduct but it was relatively small in a place where the cost probably allowed for.

Perhaps we should dig the canals and docks up while we're at it - the unemployed could do it!!

There are currently a number of developments in central London that seek to complement the existing streetscape and are sympathetic to their neighbours in terms of materials and design, but they tend to be in very affluent areas like Belgravia and Mayfair. Recreating the past doesn’t come cheap.

https://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/new-hom ... 9-millbank

http://www.ridgeford.com/development-ma ... quare.aspx

https://www.hshgroup.com/our-businesses ... ula-london

https://www.makearchitects.com/projects ... te-street/

http://www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/a ... reat-court

Each of the above are sympathetic contemporary additions to their neighbourhoods. The project below is a historical revivalist’s wet dream!

http://www.ramsa.com/projects/project/426

There are quite a few developments in London, Baths new shopping center is also another relatively recent example with varying degrees of success. I do feel it was the right decision in Bath to do this as it is a uniform city in terms of style and materials, i dont think this is possible in Cardiff as there is not one predominant style. There are streets with a predominant styles in Cardiff that should be adhered to, and any style that departs from it should be of the utmost quality but should still incorporate the massing and materials. Its the reason why most see British streetscapes as messy and ugly, to the most part in Europe even 70's monstrosities tend to have the same massing as buildings around them on infill sites.

Reconstruction projects are normally funded by donors, for example the Berlin Palaces funders have a memorial plaque put up for each of them. On a much smaller scale a faux historical building could get some backers if the design was of some importance.

After coming back from a long holiday in Europe it strikes me how much Cardiff lacks statues, fountains, little squares, interesting details on buildings etc. For example i visited Nancy, capital of the Loraine region and its central square was absolutely stunning, and had a further 3 large squares, Cardiff doesnt have any real civic square of comparison, city lawns is about as close you can get and maybe Roald Dhal Plass at a push.

After coming back from a long holiday in Europe it strikes me how much Cardiff lacks statues, fountains, little squares, interesting details on buildings etc. For example i visited Nancy, capital of the Loraine region and its central square was absolutely stunning, and had a further 3 large squares, Cardiff doesnt have any real civic square of comparison, city lawns is about as close you can get and maybe Roald Dhal Plass at a push.

That's an interesting point.

I think that lack of civic space is a result of the speed of the city's pre 1914 growth. There were deliberate attempts to 'build the city beautiful' as the city fathers put it but they were hampered by the crazy pace of expansion and the continual tension between the Conservative Bute estate and the largely Liberal and non-conformist business community.

Mountstuart Square was originally just that - a large civic square surrounded by impressive buildings. Spool on a decade and the square disappeared when the Exchange building took up the whole of the central space. Similarly, Loudon Square was a beatiful public space which rapidly declined into a slum over the course of the first half of the twentieth century.

What we do have, of course, is the magnificent Civic Centre and some very fine parklands. What we don't have is something like Glasgow's George Square - a public space around which the city revolves.