7 April 2018 This site tells the story of a major policy decision
which will fundamentally change how Bristol
looks. A change so important that in 20 years time this could be an entirely different city. Think Leeds, think Salford, think central Cardiff.
"This is perhaps the biggest mistake the City will make in 20
years," says one councillor. Yet outside the building industry, almost no-one has heard of it. In April 2017 Bristol's
Council published the document 'Urban Living - Successful Placemaking at Higher Densities'. 'Urban Living' had emerged
as a key phrase during an extensive process of consulting the public on the
wider Bristol
area's transport and housing priorities which began under George Ferguson in November 2015. During the consultations several questions
were explored: The phrase 'Urban Living' had been used during these consultations
as a shorthand for concentrating housing in Bristol, primarily on brownfield land. Densification was a popular idea, people clearly saw that traffic congestion, sustainability, and health imperatives made it necessary. But there was no mention of high rises during any of the consultations. But the meaning of the phrase began to change dramatically
with the new document. There were pictures of desired very tall buildings at St Catherine's Place,
Bedminster (proposed height now 21 floors) and in Redcliff Quarter (22 floors): Which had not been consulted on during the two-year process, nor even mentioned. Why the change? Because the Mayor had decided that the surest way to solve Bristol's housing shortage was to give developers a free rein. If they can build whatever they like, the logic is, they'll build more. The politician will fulfil his promise, the numbers of extra houses will be up. The Mayor wants to make his mark. Remember?` In other words Marvin Rees thinks high rises will be a positive legacy. He seems to think it'll be great, if Bristol looks more like Leeds. So developers are to be encouraged to build - as tall as they wish. There's a lack of democracy here. Marvin Rees' mayoral election campaign did not even mention tall buildings. And tall buildings are much more expensive to build - 43% when really tall - and to maintain, so they certainly won't achieve the objective of housing Bristol's less well off.
Yet the bandwagon rolls on. Tall buildings were the primary focus in the next iteration of the Urban Living Supplementary Planning Document (Consultation Draft (Feb 2018). Readers were told that "a well-located, well-designed tall building can be a positive feature of a successful walkable, compact neighbourhood." In March and September 2017 senior councillor officers and cabinet members had met large groups primarily consisting of developers and building professionals. Simultaneously they were encouraged to submit planning applications for tall buildings. Now there were diagrams of the sort of buildings desired: Bristol's tall buildings were specifically encouraged to rise above other neighbouring buildings, rather than to blend in:The Urban Living Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) had little ticks next to the admired designs. True, the document did recommend following Historic England's guidelines. Yet Bristol Council ignored both these guidelines, and the neighbourhood plan, and local opinion, in November when approving the 26-floor application for the Former Ambulance Station on Castle Park. Clearly tall buildings are 'in', regardless of guidelines. The remainder of the Urban Living SPD provides guidance on making
planning applications and designs for tall buildings, such as avoiding
dangerous wind tunnels: Bristol's planning documents are now studded with the phrase: "this would be a suitable location for Urban Living'. And the Urban Living SPD makes clear that this often means - high rises.
All of which ignores fundamental questions:
Bristol has a growing tourist trade and attracts professionals partly because it is historic, different, and largely low or medium-rise. We are likely to sacrifice the city's historic character and charm based on a mistaken diagnosis. Part 2: Why tall buildings make no sense for Bristol
|