Bristol Civic Society objected to this proposal. Although the lower part of the building fitted in well with the character of the area to the south of the site, the upper seven storeys looked out of place and, in our view, would be harmful to its heritage and feel particularly to the setting of the Listed Atrium building. These floors should not be added or re-designed in a lower format. The proposed height of the building would also create a canyon in Three Queens Lane in view of the high building opposite. Not only would this make Three Queens Lane very shady at this point, it would also result in a poor residential environment for future occupants of the north facing single aspect accommodation proposed.
John Payne
Looks perfectly fine to me and blends in well with the surroundings. What is this irrational dislike by BCS of tall(ish) buildings? Whenever I see a story in the local press about a new building development involving tall buildings it’s followed by the inevitable objection/legal action by BCS. I’ve said in a previous post that a lot of people like these buildings. Have you seen the Manchester skyline recently? A truly ambitious 21st century city. I wonder if the MCS operates in a similar way to its Bristol equivalent? Probably not I would guess. I would like BCS to focus on getting rid of the weeds, graffiti etc. I would also much rather they look into the much needed demolition of the Grosvenor Hotel before getting involved in the aforementioned project.
Hi Steve. You’d be surprised: https://manchestercivic.org.uk/manchester-civic-society-formally-objects-to-the-apex-development/
Opinions about tall buildings obviously differ Steve. The last time any serious effort was made to test the mood in Bristol, the consultation on the Urban Living Supplementary Planning Document, and in response to the “quick survey… designed to gauge general views on higher density development and tall buildings”, what the local community wanted was made very clear:
# 613 answered the question “Bristol should extensively promote high-rise tower blocks to meet its housing need” – 85% disagreed.
# 610 answered the question “new residential units should primarily be provided in low and mid-rise developments (places like Wapping Wharf, Paintworks, Junction 3) rather than high-rise tower blocks” – 87% agreed.
Overall, 91% of respondents to the Quick Survey lived in Bristol and 8% worked in the city. 9% of responses were from those professionally involved in the development sector. The majority of respondents were aged between 25-44 forming 39% of response with 45-64 age group forming 35% of responses.
The facade of the upper parts facing St Mary Redcliffe (not visible in the picture here) certainly needs improving, with that large undifferentiated bland section in the middle.
7 reasons why high-rises kill livability:
1. High-rises separate people from the street
2. High-rise scale is not the human scale
3. High-rises radically reduce chance encounters and propinquity/nearness
4. High-rises are vertical sprawl
5. High-rises=gentrification and inequality; Low/Mid-rises=resiliency and affordability
6. Are High Rises Even Green?
7. High Rises are not good for your health
“What is there to say? We must have the incontrovertible evidence and the mechanism whereby the high-rise leads to the low fall of urban humanity. Meanwhile, we must not go on blindly building these vertical coffins for the premature death of our civilization.
What shall we do instead while we are wanting to learn the ultimate facts? We can satisfy the economy needs for high density per land acre, which of itself is not likely to produce ill health, while restricting heigh and redistributing spaces in terraced, human-scale fashion, supporting social confluence and relationships or, at least, not impeding the nurturing of precious human resources.”
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/7-reasons-why-high-rises-kill-livability/561536/#:~:text=High%2Drise%20scale%20is%20not,can%20be%20isolating%20and%20dehumanizing.