Emerging proposals for 68-72 Avon Street: mixed-use purpose-built student accommodation scheme with commercial or community use.
The look and overall design of this development is poor. Its brutalist aesthetic does not relate to the history of the site, which is in the Silverthorne Lane Conservation Area and adjacent to the Listed Marble Works.
The architectural scale lacks harmony, balance or depth. There is no base or top to the elevations. Adherence to a strict budget has prevented the architects designing a scheme that abides by established architectural principles or fits into the Bristol dockside vernacular.
We note the architect’s intent to use coloured glazed bricks in key areas of the building, however, the extent is so minimal that bland grey brickwork predominates and presents us with a colourless and uninspiring building.
We are concerned that there could be overshadowing and daylight issues between the 11-storey northern wing and potential buildings on the site on the opposite side of the path to the proposed footbridge over the river.
There is no commitment by the applicant to contribute to the construction of the bridge. This is an important element of the outline planning permission as it would become the direct route between academic sites and student accommodation on both sides of the river.
The setbacks and changes in height of the building can be used to enliven the elevations by applying different architectural treatments to each distinct element. More emphasis could be given to the external architectural treatment of the common rooms on the corners of blocks. The ground floor could be improved by having more active street frontage onto Avon Street. There should be more trees, rain garden areas and soft landscaping.
It is good that sustainability is a major factor in the design proposals, and we are keen to see the sustainability proposals, whole-life carbon analysis and sound /noise surveys.
Willie Harbinson
This is a throw away design and student accomodations at the lowest possible cost denominator. Truly staggeringly ugly.
I agree with everything Mark comments on. Ugly is being too
kind for this monstrosity.
Surely despite being on a tight budget
the architects can come up with a better design than this in a conservation area?
I suggest lowering the height of the blocks would be a good start.
Please try again!
Do we really want a city full of tower blocks? There is enough population density in the city centre. And we certainly do not want yet more student residences and tower blocks. The city centre has already become more and more a student ghetto. Before long, non-students will not want to live there and then there will be no heart to the city except endless soulless tower blocks and bars. We know there is a need for homes, but just wildly building endless tower blocks is not the way forward. The experience of the 1960s tower blocks shows us how isolating they are for residents, leading to serious mental health issues and other social problems. This tower block mentality was begun by the last mayor. But his vision was not liked by the citizens of Bristol – hence him and the office of mayor being strongly voted out. There are numerous older buildings not currently fit for human habitation, either because they are redundant commercial or industrial properties (especially in the St Philips area) or simply older residences which need refurbishment and modernisation. Bringing older unused or currently inappropriate buildings into modern residential use through renovation or refurbishment is the way forward – not building completely new structures involving massive waste and carbon footprints in their making. Such developments are only concerned with making large sums of money for the developers and estate agents, and are not concerned with the wellbeing of the city which all modern building in the city ought to be. It seems such developers want to destroy any soul that Bristol has. And in my opinion, their architects should be ashamed of themselves for producing quite frankly such unappealing architectural rubbish. How they can call themselves architects beats me. I thought that architecture, whilst inevitably having a function, was supposed to be at its core an aesthetic art….. Apparently not, with all these sorts of brutalist structures in Bristol generally being presented by people who purport to call themselves architects, having presumably sold their architectural souls (if they ever had any).