There has been numerous housing developments in Cardiff over the last decade.
Too many too list quickly.
What appartment blocks are the most sought after and what do we think as being the most choice development?
I like the blocks on the Hayes, on the embankment opposite the Millenium Stadium and the appartments opposite Morrisons in the sports village - not the Bellway development.
Might I add that I would like to see more mid rise blocks like in Amsterdam indeed most European cities being build in Cardiff. It makes the surrund ing areas vibrant and local shops survive and transport links become more frequent and allows for communal greens paces.
What say you rascals?

I say build up. Mid-rise, high-rise.UP. and trash the LDP that will engender low-rise sprawl. My favourite apartment block gotta be Golate House. Safe Brah.

The proposed LDP hardly "encourages low rise sprawl. You look at the density of even the urban extensions and they are reasonably high. Yes, the majority of homes here will be houses as opposed to apartments, but of the 18,000 homes to be built in the extensions, a good 20% would probably be apartments, at least, given recent form in suburban developments in Cardiff.

And don't forget that at least another 18,000 houses will be built on brownfield land, probably at rather higher densities. A lot of this will be apartments.

We simply aren't Amsterdam. We don't have that culture. And if you look at the Netherlands as a whole, new builds there have been far more likely to be houses than flats than in the UK!

I think the proposed LDP has a good mix of lower and higher density, suburban and urban options. Trying to get everyone crammed into apartments in the existing urban area is just not the way forward. Already Cardiff is fairly dense, and unless you propose knocking down swathes of existing terraces or semis at Great Expense, we'll have to build at ridiculously high densities in the pockets of brownfield land available to accomodate expected household growth. More likely, we'd stymie household growth, weakening the economy of Cardiff and by extension, Wales (much of the growth would be displaced outside of Wales rather than to the Valleys).

London,the most successful city in Europe has exclusively built new housing either UP or on brownfield land for the past 65 years. No encroachment onto green fields other than the satellite New Towns. True dat.

I don't disagree with that but I had an interesting chat with a friend who works for a housing association the other day.

He said that by and large people moving into Cardiff from valley communities aren't too concerned about the size of houses or apartments since most were brought up in very small 19th century terraced housing. They were more concerned about factors like location, public transport, schools etc.

There is defninately a market for high density housing close to the city centre and we shouldn't turn our back on it. As you say I think the LDP has the mix about right.

I'm not sure what UP stands for, but it is incorrecet to say new housing in London has exclusively been brownfield - assuming you mean ex-Greater London - for example "Being a highly urbanised conurbation, 89–94% of residential land in London came from brownfield sources between 2001 and 2008"

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/brownfield-residential-redevelopment-ebook.pdf

Actually, the conclusion of that report gives some interesting insight into brownfield policy (this was an England only study, by the way):-

"The analysis of brownfield reuse trends raises three sets of key issues for consideration in national policy-making.
First, the ease of reaching the 60% target for new-build housing on brownfield (previously developed) land ahead of time was the result of an absolute decline in greenfield land development combined with high-density residential development on certain types of brownfield land. In absolute terms, the amount of brownfield land used for housing between 2000 and 2006 was only marginally higher than during the 1990s. There has actually been a decline in the total amount of land used for residential development. The meeting of the brownfield target has, therefore, been a function of a parallel decrease in the use of greenfield land. This raises the question of whether a blanket national percentage target, with a very broad definition, is sufficiently meaningful in informing us about the progress made to deliver new homes. The uptake of brownfield land for housing development, which has been falling in most regions across England since the economic downturn in autumn 2007, is likely to continue. While brownfield reuse policy has been successful in the past, any future targets should adopt a more nuanced and contextualised approach to reflect local circumstances. For example, brownfield development in areas where land is hard to develop because of contamination or low demand could be supported by government gap funding. Alternatively, in areas that have no sustainable brownfield sites, more greenfield land could be released for housing development.
Second, the government’s very broad definition of brownfield land means that a high proportion of brownfield land reuse not only has the effect of achieving regeneration goals by bringing long-term vacant and derelict land back to use, but also encourages high-density, compact urban development. This in turn raises concerns about town-cramming and garden-grabbing, as well as creating the potential for new developments to be incompatible with the character of some mature residential neighbourhoods (such as tree-lined avenues of Victorian houses). There also are concerns in some areas about the focus on building flats in city-centre locations that may not be versatile enough to adapt to households going through different life stages; this may result in increased population turnover and neighbourhood instability. The Environment Agency has also highlighted the need to strike an appropriate balance between brownfield reuse and sustainable development. This is of particular concern in high flood-risk areas, as increased flooding is expected to be one of the consequences of climate change in the future. This means that we need to consider sustainable development in a more locally sensitive way to reflect the needs and character of each site and its surrounding environment. It is also important to ensure that there is a mix of housing types to meet with local housing demand and needs.
Third, the analysis of different neighbourhood types shows that the high level of brownfield reuse has successfully accomplished the objective of injecting dynamics into the housing market, particularly the market for flats, since the mid-2000s. This shift is probably related to the activities of the national Neighbourhood Renewal initiatives and the Housing
5 Conclusion
Market Renewal Pathfinder programmes. Recycling brownfield land for housing has also altered the socioeconomic dynamics of redeveloped neighbourhoods, with population growth evident in the most deprived areas between 2001 and 2007. There have also been improvements in EDI and its associated income and economic domains in brownfield reuse areas across different deprived neighbourhood types. House price increases, population growth and improvements in deprivation indices are broad signs of brownfield regeneration policy success in deprived neighbourhoods. However, the brownfield housing market in these areas has been the result of selective activities of developers who have targeted areas where there is greatest development potential within the constraints of the planning framework that restricts greenfield development.
In conclusion, the brownfield target has been very successful in focusing policy-makers and the development industry’s attention over the last decade on the importance of conserving land resources and the need to revitalise our towns and cities. Notwithstanding the positive outcomes achieved in our most deprived neighbourhoods under the brownfield residential reuse policy, concerns have been widely expressed about the sustainability and appropriateness of continuing such a high-density brownfield approach to deliver the government’s ambitious national housing targets in the future. It is, therefore, timely at the turn of a new decade to reconsider the strategy and targets of housing planning to meet the projected housing need and demand in the most sustainable manner.
There is now a need to debate more fully the different types of brownfield land and their associated relevance for biodiversity, flood risk and neighbourhood character, which may be important in relation to future development. Sir Peter Hall5 raised questions about the appropriateness of high-density brownfield development in the second Urban Task Force Report. Again, the debate over high density has to be more refined to take into account other needs, including the public realm and the provision of amenities that are important for supporting quality of life for local residents. More importantly, since the economic downturn, developers have already signalled a declining interest in brownfield development. The issue is whether a change of policy is needed to support a strategic and sustainable approach that can deliver new homes in the near future. While brownfield reuse policy has been successful in the past, any future targets should adopt a more nuanced and contextualised approach to reflect local circumstances."

Biased as I live there, but I like the flats (apartments...) on Windsor Quay, apart from lack of cycle storage. And no local pub/corner shop. But this is older than 10 years...

You want to try living in 'that apartment block opposite Morrisons ( not the Bellway one)' Its a small dump! All the apartments are small and many have no parking facility. Best thing for it is demolition!!!!!!

So the apartments built over the last decade are somewhat of a fail if they are shoebox size and do not have shops and ammenities.
Surely they should be building family friendly blocks and the ground floors of those especially those located in throughfare's should be for parades of buisness's.
Not getting the answers I was expecting.
Higher density would defo be the way forward for better transport links and infrastruture.Surely a better rail link in the city would evolve if thethe density of population was increased
As for not being Amsterdam, maybe La Havre, Colgne, Brussels, Marsaille, Montpellier, Turin, Barcelona, Lisbon, Copenhagan, etc
Surely some of the new builds must be viewed as a success - I had always overlooked Windsor Quay - but it is a decent location.

I can't speak on all those cities, but am familiar with Barcelona in particular (and it's significantly larger than Cardiff). Anyway, I think that in Barcelona and presumably a lot of other continental cities, that is the traditional norm, certainly within central areas, to live like that. In Britain, family housing has rarely if ever been in such blocks. Therefore, the step change required not only in planning/building terms, but also in consumer demand, would be huge.

Having said that, if one was planning a dream city from scratch, such high-density family-friendly blocks might be a nice idea.

Some more thoughts on Cardiff's urban development

http://www.clickonwales.org/2012/11/overcoming-cardiffs-block-on-family-housing/

Our picture of European countries being full of apartment-living families in densely populated towns and cities is, I think, largely a false one. As I said, I think you'd find that, if anything, rather more new housing in other countries has been green field in the last 10 - 15 years than in the UK. And average new-build sizes are certainly significantly bigger in other European countries, which would tend to support that proposition.

You argue that "we" should be "building family friendly blocks".. with ground floor "parades of businesses".. Firstly, it begs who is this "we"? Are you advocating a significant government-led building project where we decide ex ante what to build rather than looking at market fundamentals? Because if it made financial sense to do this, it would have been done. House builders are pretty adaptable and switched massively from 3 bed semis to blocks of flats when the planning system and changing economic patterns favoured this. Quite simply, there doesn't seem to be a latent demand for this kind of housing in the UK. Second, just building ground floor units doesn't mean they'll be used. Just look at whats happened at Celestia here they were empty for years, or the problems in letting Barack Lane. I think sometimes for those of us interested in urban planning and development, we are tempted to forget about what the market wants, what there is real demand for, and design our urban wet dreams.

Working with rather than against our culture and where the market is leading us, I think what looks like it will work best is a mix of apartments across urban, suburban and even rural areas for the growing number of 1 or 2 people households. And then mid-density homes, often in traditional suburban environments, but also where feasible in more urban brownfield plots, for families. I think the proposed LDP tries to do that.

Random how on earth can there be any latent demand for building family friendly blocks when the great purchasing public is not offered that option. The British market is not aware that an alternative lifestyle could be available. Of course the market is leading in the opposite direction as all the marketing and media push the suburban model and the builders make bigger profits from building on virgin land.

I would argue that the big house builders in the UK are not very adaptive or innovative, real innovative house re-design has been taking place in Germany and Scandanavia with the Passivhaus process. In Germany it is now becoming possible to construct buildings which need no heating systems for the same cost as those built to normal German building standards, as was done with the Passivhaus apartments at Vauban, Freiburg. http://www.passivhaus-vauban.de/passivhaus.en.html

Family friendly blocks built in central locations offer the chance to make big savings on energy bills and on transport costs while living in a more vibrant enviroment.

There could well be a latent demand for larger appartments for families. After all developers have no problem shifting "Townhouses" which basically are houses without gardens. Is there that much difference between living in a "Townhouse" and living in a large apartment? Not really.

If the market hasn't been tested how does any one know - one way or the other?

There is so much land suitable for proper family houses in Cardiff, but it can't be used due to the great house price conspiracy.

Everyone want a share of the pie, developers, builders, councils, and of course the Nimbys. All in it together to engineer the artificially high price of any new housing stock.

Remember your house was once a nice green field site.